PhotoDude.com

Just how rapidly is ANYBODY supposed to react to the crazy preacher? The article is dated May 7. Your post is dated May 7. I’d only barely glimpsed something of it in the blogs yesterday evening after watching the ball game.

And what would you have anybody in any leadership position of any political party say about how a church runs it church business? More importantly, WHY would you have any political party say anything, if your aim is to maintain seperation of church and state? The only sensible answer by any politician who’s not a member of that church is “It’s none of my business.” And any politician who is a member of that church should say “That’s the church’s business, not yours.”

And honestly, if a church doesn’t like a preacher and his way of taking care of his flock (and I sure wouldn’t like this one), they can fire him yesterday. It’s pretty clear to me (a Christian and a conservative and a man who quit qoing to church because of this kind of petty internal crap) that this is something that’s been simmering for several months. I’m kind of interested in knowing why the story of a 100-member church way out in the sticks having a split is in the national freaking news with moderates demanding a Republican response IMMEDIATELY. But as a irredeemable cynic, I think I know why…just look who’s quoted in the story.

“Just how rapidly is ANYBODY supposed to react to the crazy preacher?”

N.C. Democratic Party Chairman Jerry Meek had time to react, as did People for the American Way. It doesn’t take much time to condemn something, and get it in the media, as we should all know. But “Efforts to reach the N.C. Republican Party and the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina failed.” As did efforts to reach the preacher himself.

“And what would you have anybody in any leadership position of any political party say about how a church runs it church business?”

The cynic in me replies “turnabout, fair play.” As in, what would you have anybody in any leadership position of a church say about how a political party runs its business? If it is fair for church leaders to make demands of politicians, and claim some are against people of faith, why isn’t it fair for a political leader to say, for instance, to Pat Robertson, “you’re a religious bigot, elected by no one, and you don’t stand for the party.”

It’s apparently way too hard. At least, for anyone other than the late Barry Goldwater.

“More importantly, WHY would you have any political party say anything, if your aim is to maintain seperation of church and state?”

Because the preacher has violated that separation, in a manner that makes that church no longer a church, at least, according to our government’s definition of “church.” It’s now a political action committee, by definition.

“The only sensible answer by any politician who’s not a member of that church is ‘It’s none of my business.’”

If that politician wants to ignore the law regarding tax-exempt status for churches who engage in direct political support for a candidate, you’re right, it’s none of his business. It’s just the law.

“And any politician who is a member of that church should say ‘That’s the church’s business, not yours.’”

As long as he’s willing to increase his tithe to cover the taxes the “church” must now pay.

“And honestly, if a church doesn’t like a preacher and his way of taking care of his flock (and I sure wouldn’t like this one), they can fire him yesterday.”

About half the church did.

“I’m kind of interested in knowing why the story of a 100-member church way out in the sticks having a split is in the national freaking news with moderates demanding a Republican response IMMEDIATELY.”

I don’t know, could it have something to do with the environment fostered by three months of the Republican controlled 109th Congress pounding us with the ideas that the left are “against people of faith,” as well as judges who don’t rule in their favor, in cases like Terri Schiavo? Then a pastor divides his flock, 51-49, almost identical to the election results, because it is more important to him that his flock be politically pure, than to witness and spread the word of God to all who enter His doors (whatever happened to the Christian concept of “hate the sin, not the sinner”?)

Environmentally, that’s cause and effect, I’d say.

Scott, I don’t know what else to tell you that doesn’t sound really harsh. I think there’s a lot of folks who have not felt even a portion of the measure of discontent that has come out of the recent uprising on the Religious Right. Do you honestly believe that lowering the wall separating church and state is a “winning position” in a country that is 37% Democrat, 26% Independent, and 37% Republican? Because not even all that 37% support such a move. You don’t sound very sure about it yourself.

However, there will be no measure anyone will accept until Nov., 2006. But I feel so strongly I’d be willing to bet you a week’s pay that continuing down this path (and that includes not standing up to say what’s right in a situation like this) will be the death of the Republican majority.

Oops, I was wrong about no comment from Pastor Chandler : “Chandler didn’t return a message left by The Associated Press at his home Friday, and several calls to the church went unanswered. He told WLOS-TV in Asheville that the actions were not politically motivated.”

Insisting his members vote for Bush was not politically motivated. To quote Herb Tarlek ... “OOOh-Kay-Fine.”

And that article also says “George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church’s bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership. ‘Membership is a local church issue,’ he said. ‘It is not something the state convention would enter into.’”

So it appears that it is only the Republican Party that “hasn’t had time” to comment.

I don’t see why they should be forced to comment. I hate it when Parties feel like they have to comment on everything to score points.

That Preacher strikes me as a typical un-American dolt looking to increase his personal power through the church.

“I don’t see why they should be forced to comment.”

I don’t see why anybody should be forced to do anything. It’s pretty much exactly my point on church and state. But that train left the station a long time ago, didn’t it?

If Republican leaders want to [a] allow people like Randall Terry, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson to become defacto spokesmen for the Right (by their silent assent, if nothing else), [b] force judges to acknowledge “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government,” [c] gather with conservatives to seek “Remedies to Judicial Tyranny” because, as former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) said, the country’s “principal problem” is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether “we as a people acknowledge that God exists,” and [d] have the Senate Majority leader and others appear at Justice Sunday which pushed the idea the left are “against people of faith”...

...then they can expect that religious issues like this will be regularly dropped on their doorstep. Even when it’s some podunk pastor in a tiny NC town … because it is indicative of the environment they are intentionally fostering with their rhetoric. Some call it “blowback.”

If you want to lower the wall between church and state, you can expect crap to flow from both sides, in both directions. Get used to it.

N.C. Democratic Party Chairman: Bingo. Got it one. Who’s the politician using a church issue to his purposes? The Republicans are right to stay out of it. It’s a personal church matter, except for…

tax-exemptions for churches with preachers getting political by endorsing politicians: so, in other words, there is already a law, right?

Then a pastor divides his flock: flocks have been dividing for millenia. I just don’t buy that this nut in this place at this time is somehow the fault of a political party in power for three months.

lowering the wall…You don’t sound very sure about it yourself.: That’s because I want nothing of the sort. I’ve failed to be clear here.

force judges to acknowledge: Re-read that bill. It does nothing that you are purporting, this “forcing”. What it does is prevent action by a Federal court against anyone who does believe that and STATES IT. I see nothing in it that would FORCE anyone into anything.

We’ve already been down this path about electoral percentages and judicial activism and peacefully achieving political goals through the use of the vote, you and I. I’m not here to try to convince or convert. And by all means, be harsh if you need to. I am here to sharpen my own arguments and beliefs. Because I don’t believe this is some uber-plan by the remnants of the Moral Majority to turn America into a theocracy.

“so, in other words, there is already a law, right?”

Yes, and silent politicians to ignore it.

“I just don’t buy that this nut in this place at this time is somehow the fault of a political party in power for three months.”

Three months? It’s been three months since Republicans took complete control of The Three Houses That Make Two Branches; White, Senate, and House. But they’ve held one or two of those for a long time.

Has the religious right been driving the bus for longer than three months? Who was Rove most disappointed didn’t turn out in 2000, and who did he target for a big turnaround in 2004: protestant evangelicals. Remember the small scandal when it was found the Republican Party was soliciting churches for their membership rolls? They backed down and found other ways, because Rove felt it was the big mistake of 2000 that made it so close, and he gamed it out hard in 2004.

It worked. Gloriously. And this is the blowback.

“Re-read that bill. It does nothing that you are purporting, this ‘forcing’. What it does is prevent action by a Federal court against anyone who does believe that and STATES IT. I see nothing in it that would FORCE anyone into anything.”

Look at it again, Scott. Let’s break it down by phrase, and what comes of those phrases;

“Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts”

Federal Atheists in Robes.

“from exercising jurisdiction over”

Federal Atheists in Robes, be gone from this dispute:

“any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”

The dispute being, for example, the Ten Commandments in city hall/state court, a judge offering a prayer on the record before a case begins, or any other expression of faith or action taken due to faith in the course of their elected capacity that someone might think violates the separation of church and state.

In other words, if a Judge Roy Moore type decrees witnesses shall be sworn in with the closing line ”...so help me God, and save me Jesus, for we are all sinners before Christ” ... and you decide you want to take him to court over that “acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government” (because you are Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever), you better hope you win at the state level, because this bill would decree the Federal Atheists in Black Robes will be gone from that dispute.

This takes the federal court out of the loop on matters of church and state. That’s what it “forces.”

“I’m not here to try to convince or convert. And by all means, be harsh if you need to.”

I don’t. I only write here about things that strike me strongly one way or the other. On some things, I just go off like a tuning fork honing in on a note. It’s not a choice, it’s a pure tone I hear … “this is wrong”. I once made a living from being a good barometer of the public in one particular way, and I feel like I still am in many ways. I think it’s one of the (very few) benefits of being a moderate/independent/centrist/whatever slur they’re using these days: you are more in tune with the “body politic” as a whole, without the unavoidable filters and bias that come from living nearer the ends of the spectrum.

So, when I say “harsh,” it’s more like [shaking you by the shoulders] “don’t you see it? It’s … right … there!” And that doesn’t work. And, yes, I could be completely wrong on this. But often, some people will see something happening that the majority won’t see until it manifests itself in a big and definable way. My guess right now is that’s Nov. 2006, but events could outstrip that in ways you or I can’t imagine.

“Because I don’t believe this is some uber-plan by the remnants of the Moral Majority to turn America into a theocracy.”

How about a “benevolent theocracy,” a “compassionately conservative theocracy,” or a “kinder gentler theocracy.” I kid, because I think theocracy is an extreme word, like those who’ve referred to “the American Taliban.” Give me a break.

No, I don’t think this is an uber-plan. It’s a group of people who believe it was them who brought this Republican majority into being and have a moral agenda to promote as payback (Dobson, Terry, Robertson, et al), combined with a newly-minted Republican majority who often act like the car-chasing dog who finally caught one, combined with jostling for position among contenders to be George’s Successor, and old school high level DC power brokering gone out of control.

But this isn’t about intent. It’s about effect. It’s about the tone it creates in this country, one of persecution and division. Right down to a 51-49 split of one small church.

And perhaps I’ve not been clear, in that I’m not saying this church division is “the disease.” I’m saying this is a symptom.

And my call for a Republican voice on this? That’s not meant as “penance,” it’s meant as damage control. They have every right to say nothing. Or even agree with what the pastor did. But … some day … some Republican with a spine is going to have to pull a Barry Goldwater, and call them for the clowns they are (and when they toss a softball like this pastor over the plate, you swat it, so you can avoid the hard pitches)

It may happen before 2006. But most certainly after.

This story strikes me as odd because it is a wee church with a spittle of a congregation out in the middle of nowhere. The first question I ask myself is: Why is it making news?

Not every internal political drama of every podunk church makes it to the national level, so the means by which this event gained notice would be interesting to know. Stuff like this just doesn’t make national, because it’s so not important.

Second, why should the Republicans comment on it? The Democrats don’t have a comment for every Maoist campus cult that experiences a power play or some insignificant anti-war club that kicks out its members for whatever reason. This church thing is on par with those types of groups.

Why does it matter and why are we (i.e., the nation as a whole) even talking about it? It’s not my church, it’s not even in my State, and it sure as hell isn’t anywhere near my denomination. It has absolutely zero influence on anything except the lives of the people involved with it, and those people are the ones who will sort this stupidity out on their own. I don’t see why it’s an issue, except as an irrelevant data point used to bash Republicans when there are plenty of significant data points to use for that job instead, many of which you’ve already talked about in this post and in your comments.

I don’t know, it just strikes me as petty.

And this is the blowback.: Not sure if you mean the preacher or the response to the preacher, but point taken. You had earlier blamed it on the three months of the Republican controlled 109th Congress., and that’s where I was coming from.

Federal Atheists in Robes, be gone from this dispute: that’s an interesting, and dramatic, interpretation. And who knows? It could certainly come to that. But it most definitely does NOT force anyone to take an oath to God. Which is what you’ve been saying.

It’s about the tone it creates in this country, one of persecution and division.: I’m just not going to buy the “persecution and division” angle. Not one single solitary American soul is being persecuted in the name of theology. My opinion is that many are feeling persecuted, owing to the rise of a religous voting bloc that has put people of faith in positions of power in order to advance an agenda of their own. And for what ever reason, whether it’s distaste, atheism, or ignorance of a faith-based culture, those people are puzzled and maybe scared by the Bible thumpers.

Now, to the Dobsons and Colsons and Falwells. These fellows are NO DIFFERENT from, for one little example, the founders of MoveOn (except they delivered the votes and MO didn’t) or the leaders of the AFL-CIO. They have specialized agendas and they will do their best to see them advanced—and they want their pound of flesh for delivering the vote. And, as always, they will get some of it, but not all ot if, because it’s in the inherent nature of a politician to screw someone somewhere (since they obviously can’t make everybody happy.) What they get might be something you find distasteful, but I will stand here today and tell you that it will not be something that is unconstitutional.

Now, let me tell you where I am at, like your MOR tuning fork. I am, forever and always, against granting any more power over the individual to the state than is necessary, because I inherently do not trust the state to act in MY best interests. Therefore, my agenda is to elect people who will devolve power back to a lower level of government (the State of Texas, or the County of Dallas or the head of the household, etc.) when and where possible. And the Religous Right, as you call them, are dead-set on crowbarring the judiciary out of the law-making business (for one example.) Hurrah, says I, for I believe that can happen without in any way imposing my Christian beliefs on you in the process. It also happens that I believe they are our best hope for stopping the creeping federalism that has been going on for decades and returning state matters (gay marriage, for one example) to the states where they belong. I sincerely do not believe that the inevitable result will be any kind of theocratic, Jesus-shouting, religion-tested America. In fact, I believe the opposite—we will wind up with an America where faith, all faiths, will no longer even be a consideration when we’re talking about public policy. And for that, you have every right to call me a Pollyanna. ;-)

Paul: “Not every internal political drama of every podunk church makes it to the national level, so the means by which this event gained notice would be interesting to know. Stuff like this just doesn’t make national, because it’s so not important.”

Well, I first read a link in the Asheville, NC newspaper, “local” to this event. I honestly couldn’t tell you where I found that link, other than from one of my usual choice of popular link aggregators. In other words, it got picked up by the blogs.

The next thing I know, it’s an AP story, appearing in my local paper, as well as the NY Times, Washington Post, etc. So as for “the means by which this event gained notice”, in a generic sense, you’re soaking in it: our current news cycle. Local media article, picked up by blogs, and picked up by wires and national media.

“Second, why should the Republicans comment on it? The Democrats don’t have a comment for every Maoist campus cult that experiences a power play or some insignificant anti-war club that kicks out its members for whatever reason.”

And yet, how many calls were there for Democrats, particularly John Kerry, to publicly repudiate the views of Michael Moore and his movie last year? It was a similar point. Here’s an extreme view from your side of the spectrum: do you agree with it, or repudiate it? Kerry failed that test as well.

Do you think he would have been better off saying something simple that made it clear Moore had a right to his views, but that Kerry did not 100% agree with them?

Again, no one should have to do anything. These people shouldn’t have to leave their church because their pastor insists they mimic his political views. And no one has to say a word about this. My call for comment isn’t one of punishment or penance. It’s a call to opportunity, to point out a Big Fat Slowball over the plate that could easily be swatted hard, and perhaps reel in some of criticism the party is getting on this issue.

But silence is the obvious choice being made here. It’s a rightful choice. I’m considering it myself.

“Why does it matter and why are we (i.e., the nation as a whole) even talking about it? It’s not my church, it’s not even in my State, and it sure as hell isn’t anywhere near my denomination.”

It’s not my church, it is my home state, and it is the denomination in which I was raised (and that of the college I attended ). For whatever that’s worth (meaning, if bloggers have to post some bonafides in order to offer an opinion on a subject, then Six Apart will be bankrupt by year’s end). As for why “the nation as a whole” is talking about it, I don’t think they are. They’re still talking about other things that have “absolutely zero influence on anything except the lives of the people involved with it” ... like Jennifer Wilbanks, and how many lashes she should get.

“I don’t see why it’s an issue, except as an irrelevant data point used to bash Republicans when there are plenty of significant data points to use for that job instead”

Some of the most significant data points for me lately have been the religious tone that debate has taken on, by choice, from the right. When you start throwing that kind of stuff around, it has an effect. Symptoms. I believe this is one of them.

In other words, when you start trying to lower the wall between church and state, as the Republican Party has leaned hard towards, you’ve made it an issue. When a preacher then comes along and lowers the wall from his side, and boots Christians who fail to have those dictated Republican political beliefs, the issue has come home to roost.

I’m sorry, that just seems as plain as the blue sky to me, so I don’t know what else to tell you.

Scott: “that’s an interesting, and dramatic, interpretation. And who knows? It could certainly come to that.”

Well. That’s sure the kind of law we want to have, isn’t it? The kind where two reasonable people can look at the very same words, and they are so nebulously legalized we see two entirely different things, and we end up talking about how it could certainly allow for some dramatic interpretations. Yep, that’s the kind of clear law we desperately need on this volatile issue.

“I’m just not going to buy the ‘persecution and division’ angle. Not one single solitary American soul is being persecuted in the name of theology.”

Again, we have our wires crossed here, because we apparently see two different things. You seem to see those on the left as crying out “persecution.” I see the Religious Right nearly screaming it : “People of faith feel they are under a tyranny and are having their liberty taken from them”

But I’ll agree with you, no, not a single soul is being persecuted because of their religion. On the left, or the right.

Let’s keep it that way.

“I am, forever and always, against granting any more power over the individual to the state than is necessary, because I inherently do not trust the state to act in MY best interests.”

And I’m right there with you on that. But while you see them “crowbarring the judiciary out of the law-making business”, I see one party trying to take control of all three branches of our system, and chip away at the checks and balances that system has long held, slowly adding to their control. One Party control. A Senate procedure here, a new law ripping specific jurisdiction from Federal judges there, and before you know it, all the little erosions have a cumulative effect.

“And for that, you have every right to call me a Pollyanna.”

We’re both Pollyannas in our own ways, I reckon. You’re hopeful for a political process “where faith, all faiths, will no longer even be a consideration when we’re talking about public policy.” I’m hopeful for a political process where the actions of the politically extreme on both sides bring their parties closer to the realities of the center.

I expect both of us will be disappointed.

Ol’ Chucklehead is a gasbag, and that’s why ABC puts him on—to burn segments between commercials. I ain’t gonna apologize for Pat’s hot air, any more than I expected anyone to apologize for Michael Moore’s (besides Moore himself.) Now, I don’t think you’re asking me to. But let me get it on record that I really do strive to avoid playing “gotcha” with those kinds of Cling-ons. We could type “well, what about…?” all day and not get any damn where. It’s really up to us to stop it, at least personally.

I expect both of us will be disappointed.

Maybe a little, but not more than we can tolerate, I bet. What you see as chipping away of a foundation, I see as the chipping away of a calcification that’s accreted over the years through Democratic & Progressive control, and I’m encouraged by that.

But pendulums swing, as you’ve noted before. This one could already be swinging the other way and about to knock me flat on my ass.

oh, ummm, i’ll come back later.