|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Church excommunicates all Democrats...
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Ocean
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/p...1/50506036/1001
it is exactly as it sounds. spread it around.
Posted by: marioze53
How does that story relate to the title of your thread? Do you know what excommunicate means?
Posted by: Ocean
it means different thing for different churches. in some tiny churches it means kicked out of the church. in catholic churches it means out of communion. (i was raised roman catholic)
in most american churches it means kicked out of the church. and its the word the church goers used. (i watched the original news clip)
the word has more than one exact meaning in america
Posted by: Bishop
eh, who cares what one small silly baptist wacko does in NC. The rest of the world points and laughs and moves along.
Christianity is so diversified these days anyways, the only ones who have to 'worry' are the roman catholics, and they don't really have much to worry about, in regards to the issues surrounding this sort of thing.
Posted by: redwench
im all for it myself. theyre going to lose their tax exempt status, and end up bankrupt. more churches should do this.
Posted by: marioze53
 Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean
it means different thing for different churches. in some tiny churches it means kicked out of the church. in catholic churches it means out of communion. (i was raised roman catholic)
in most american churches it means kicked out of the church. and its the word the church goers used. (i watched the original news clip)
the word has more than one exact meaning in america
|
The article makes no mention of them being kicked out of church. They werent kicked out of the church, just a meeting. They have no right to kick them out of church, but a Deacons meeting where financial issues are discussed? I see no issue with that. I dont like what they did and I absolutely detest radical right wing preachers, but they did nothing wrong. Just a bunch of liberal writers trying to further tarnish the churches already infamous reputation.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Just a bunch of liberal writers trying to further tarnish the churches already infamous reputation.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
They werent kicked out of the church, just a meeting.
|
http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/non.gif
Quote:
|
Nine members of a local church had their membership revoked
|
Quote:
|
About 20 members of the 400-member East Waynesville Baptist Church voted the nine members out at a recent deacon meeting
|
This happened during a meeting - but they were kicked out of the church - so these "liberal writers" are just confining themselves to the truth 
Posted by: Ocean
there is more on this story than that one article.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/5/211218/4946
and video
http://www.dembloggers.com/story/2005/5/5/212240/7757
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
This happened during a meeting - but they were kicked out of the church - so these "liberal writers" are just confining themselves to the truth
|
yeah yeah fine...Still, the authors of the posted articles used open ended words/ phrases (i.e. excommunicate, banned) which have ultimately triggered this little debate. The point is they can come back to the church whenever they want to. Its not like they were banished for life or condemned to hell.
Quote:
|
Nine members of a local church had their membership revoked
|
Irrelevant... I am not a member of the church I attend, yet the ushers dont fend me off with offering plates or barricade the sanctuary. If they were voted out of a buisness meeting then whats the big deal? The only problem here is a politically minded preacher preaching politics.
Quote:
Perhaps non-biased sources might be appropriate? There is nothing in the video that suggests "excommunication" as you define it save hollow accusations.
Posted by: redwench
perhaps you find USA today biased? http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...-politics_x.htm
almost word for word the same as the original. persons had their membership in a church revoked (ie asked to leave and not return) because of their political views. some churches do have membership, although yours may not.
a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.
Posted by: Ocean
they were kicked out of the church.
that is what excommunication is to most americans. removed from their religious group. kicked out of church.
but i wouldnt expect you to think we we referring to the excommunication that only the pope can do, when we are talking about baptist churches.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
title is a tad exaggerated... shoulda stuck with the article's proper title:
"Members say church ousts Kerry supporters"
Posted by: Ocean
this was the first article to the story i read
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/5/5/211218/4946
then i found a link on this page that went to a (imo) better source, so i picked the other link to show. it uses excommunicated in the title specifically.
" The story should pop up here soon." then that link took me to the site i posted in the thread starter. it wasnt me that used the word. it was the orginal link i found. i just picked what i thought was a better link.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
yeah yeah fine...Still, the authors of the posted articles used open ended words/ phrases (i.e. excommunicate, banned) which have ultimately triggered this little debate.
|
Let's just say they somewhat embroidered the facts...
And I doubt their target was the Church itself, unlike what you suggested.
The pastor's attitude was inappropriate to say the least - IMO there is nothing wrong with their decrying it the way they did;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
The only problem here is a politically minded preacher preaching politics.
|
If this were nothing more than an isolated case, perhaps.
However it is tad more disquieting if such incidents reflect a more insidious & widespread problem, such as for example religion trying to insinuate itself into politics on a nationwide scale - as it seems to be the trend nowadays http://forum.presence-pc.com/icones/smilies/ange.gif
By the way...is the US a secular state (and is it mentionned in your Constitution)?
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
No, USA today is reliable.
Quote:
persons had their membership in a church revoked (ie asked to leave and not return) because of their political views. some churches do have membership, although yours may not.
|
The article does not say they were asked to leave and not return, simply that their memberships were revoked. Chandler expressed his wishes in a previous sermon, but he cannot keep them out of the church if they want to come back. But then, If you were a democrat/ Kerry supporter attending a church with a man like Chandler on the pulpet, would you really want to stay? I think not. So you see, he had their best interests in mind
Every church Ive ever been to has had membership. Membership in itself means absolutely nothing except that the church recognizes you as a member of the body. Removing of membership is more a symbolic gesture than say headline news.
Quote:
|
a pastor has every right to disallow memberships if a church's bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership.
|
As it should be dont you think? Just think of the church as a fraternity.
As Christians we believe we believe were working for The Man. As such, it is imperative that the church have members with strong "moral" convictions. Im not saying democrats are immoral (I voted for Kerry btw), just that Chandler chose the wrong criteria for his church (i.e. politics).
Quote:
Originally posted by Ocean
but i wouldnt expect you to think we we referring to the excommunication that only the pope can do, when we are talking about baptist churches.
|
You thought right. But Im sure you would agree that the word excommunicate stirs up some resentful feelings given the churches shady history. That kind of prejudice is not relevant in this case. Laggy's right...
Quote:
title is a tad exaggerated... shoulda stuck with the article's proper title:
"Members say church ousts Kerry supporters"
|
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
If this were nothing more than an isolated case, perhaps.
|
Thats just it. This is an isolated case.
Quote:
However it is tad more disquieting if such incidents reflect a more insidious & widespread problem, such as for example religion trying to insinuate itself into politics on a nationwide scale - as it seems to be the trend nowadays
By the way...is the US a secular state (and is it mentionned in your Constitution)?
|
Funny, I always thought the church was better off trying to claw its way back into politics than actually at the controls. Problem? Hell, if anything were making real progress. Ironically, assuming God exists (which I do), Im sure he would be very put out to learn that he has been excommunicated from politics in our secular state...
Posted by: TotalRecall
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Problem? Hell, if anything were making real progress.
|
You said it. 
Posted by: IceBreaker
Back at last -
looks like there's been something of an Apocalypse lately http://www.opentechsupport.net/foru...cons/icon22.gif
Anyways...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Ironically, assuming God exists (which I do), I’m sure he would be very put out to learn that he has been excommunicated from politics in our secular state...
|
Not quite If I’m not mistaken it is still the priest who pronounces the (legal) marriage, and in a courtroom witnesses are still required to swear over the Bible…
Don't get me wrong - I have absolutely nothing against such traditions. But compare this to say, countries like France where such practices would be considered incompatible with a 1905 law called the Law of Separation of Church & State (but which concerns any religion, of course). Now this law, enshrined in the french Constitution itself, acts as a "guarantor" of secularity, preventing ANY interference whatsoever of a religion in state affairs.
And ever since its enactment, this law has been applied to the letter. Thus, you will never find a bible - or other religious book - in a courtroom (in fact, judges & lawmakers - who tend to hold great store by the 1905 law - would shudder at the mere thought of this :d)
As for marriage, the official (ie. legal) ceremony is performed by the mayor. There is still a second, religious ceremony but it is optional & has no legal bearing on the couple’s marital status - which is why the "by the powers vested in me by the State" part is left out of the priest's speech, unlike in the US were the priest himself has the legal power to seal a marriage (religious & official ceremony "all-in-one")
Churches, mosques, synagogues etc. can of course go about their private businesses dispensing charity to the needy & so on, but being religious institutions they cannot receive state funding.
Still by virtue of that law, civil servants & government officials are not allowed to display any conspicuous religious sign while on duty (there was one person who, working in the Ministry of Justice, went to work dressed up as a catholic priest on Carnival Day & as a result got a nasty reprimand from his superiors :d)
This ban was recently extended to public (ie. state) schools, and concerns, for example, the cross, the kippa and...the veil, which pupils are no longer allowed to wear, at least "ostentatiously". Not surprisingly, the 'veil' part sparked quite a series of protests from the local muslim community when female muslim students, often coerced into wearing their veil by their parents, refused to take it off during class & were thereby expelled from school http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
France (and other similarly secular states with similar laws, such as Belgium ) even went one step further:
It was initially provided that Europe's judeo-christian roots be mentioned in the impending European Constitution. Now mind you, this had nothing to do with any kind of law, and did not allow the Church or other religious body to meddle with political affairs. Even so however, president Chirac staunchly opposed this, arguing that even though such roots were undeniable, to merely mention them in a constitutional text would violate the secularity of France's political institutions!
Although I personally understand his point of view (and also uphold the principle of secularity) I wonder if in this case if he went a tad too far...
I would be interested in having other forum members' (european & non-european alike) opinions on this particular matter, by the way..
So that's what I meant by 'secular' when I asked you whether the US was - in theory at least - a secular state 
Posted by: redwench
yes, in theory.
i do agree with chirac. if there is no purpose to the language in question, it should not be included in a constitution. that would be like rambling on about the french revolution in the french constitution, it serves no purpose and shouldn't be there. if the meaningless references are religious in nature, all the more so in a secular constitution.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Is this secularity also laid down in your Constitution?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
i do agree with chirac. if there is no purpose to the language in question, it should not be included in a constitution.
|
You meant "to the religion in question" I suppose..
There is obviously no purpose to it. But as it was already in the initial text (whoever put it there in the first place I know not), and - being merely a historical reference - represents no risk whatsoever (as it does not empower the Church to interfere in political matters), there would have been no harm in keeping them, either...all the more so than other, non-religious references pertaining to Europe's history (and therefore, serving no purpose either ) were also mentionned in the text...
Posted by: redwench
no, i meant the language. and that includes the other historical nonsense. meaningless drivel doesnt belong in legal documents.
but unless the eu is establishing a judeo-christian union, its rather an insult to the many other religions that have the same basic tenants to have such references included. the roman empire was not judeo-christian, and certainly was a historical influence for the various countries in europe.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Aye, but for some reason roman paganism was a priori not cited in the initial text :|
Anyhow, they might as well show some coherence by expunging the text of all historical references - be they religious or not - while they're at it...
Like I said I can understand the president's point of view. What I deemed somewhat amusing, however, was his doggedness in seeking to have just these few lines concerning the religion - only these - struck off the text.
Much ado about nothing, I'd say...
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
Even so however, president Chirac staunchly opposed this, arguing that even though such roots were undeniable, to merely mention them in a constitutional text would violate the secularity of France's political institutions!
|
Quote:
|
... it was already in the initial text (whoever put it there in the first place I know not), and - being merely a historical reference - represents no risk whatsoever (as it does not empower the Church to interfere in political matters), there would have been no harm in keeping them, either...all the more so than other, non-religious references pertaining to Europe's history (and therefore, serving no purpose either ) were also mentionned in the text...
|
Reminds me of a quote from a book Im reading...
Quote:
|
...this is the way we read Spinoza now, aware that after him scientists lost a sense of the sacred, with deadly results, and that a thoroughly secularized politics proved to be, if anything, even more intolerant than the ancient theocracies.
|
It seems that religious ignorance is surpassed only by secularizations intolerance for religion...
Posted by: IceBreaker
"Secular fundamentalism" ? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif
I don't know how this will evolve in the forseeable future but as for now, if I had to choose between that & religious fundamentalism, given today's context I'd readily pick the former over the latter http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
It seems that religious ignorance is surpassed only by secularizations intolerance for religion...
|
yes, those pesky secularists are constantly trying to remove the 10 commandments from churches and have evolution taught in sunday school. damn them.
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
yes, those pesky secularists are constantly trying to remove the 10 commandments from churches and have evolution taught in sunday school. damn them.
|
Not as far as I know ... maybe I should look into that.
I was thinking more of the ten commmandments displayed in Little Rock or creationism vs. darwinism or the Pledge of Allegence. You know? The little things. (I hadnt noticed the word "God" in the pledge until the drama made news). Or even the subject which has spawned this discussion.
It seems that these are the illigitimate issues that deemed "secular fundamentalists" (nice Ice ) focus on instead of arguments that can hold some water. What about the important things? If I am not mistaken, the Church has never offered pardons/ apologies/ whatever to Copernicus or Galileo for having its head up its own arse. Where was the church (or religion for that matter) during the holocaust? Or the crusades? The priest/ molestation crisis?
Pardon the rant, but if organized religion is to be assulted -specifically the church,- I would prefer the attacks had some merit as opposed to being arbitrary ramblings. Its almost as if they were looking for an argument for arguments sake as opposed to for the greater good... Is that the case here?
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
It seems that these are the illigitimate issues that deemed "secular fundamentalists" (nice Ice ) focus on instead of arguments that can hold some water. What about the important things? |
those are the important things. many people, both religious and secular, take the separation of church and state in the us constitution very seriously. if you dont understand why, consider living under sharia law if youre not a muslim.
Quote:
|
If I am not mistaken, the Church has never offered pardons/ apologies/ whatever to Copernicus or Galileo for having its head up its own arse. Where was the church (or religion for that matter) during the holocaust? Or the crusades? The priest/ molestation crisis?
|
those are social issues, not legal ones. while worthy of discussion, they are hardly relevant to the general populace, unlike legal ones. particularly since only the catholic church would be the focus of said discussion for those topics.
Quote:
|
Its almost as if they were looking for an argument for arguments sake as opposed to for the greater good... Is that the case here?
|
the greater good is best served by keeping religion out of our government, imho. someday, you might be in the religious minority. would you really want to be afflicted with laws and policies that are based on islam? cant eat pork or drink alcohol ya know. defiling the koran is punishable by death too.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Redwench>
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
many people, both religious and secular, take the separation of church and state in the us constitution very seriously.
|
You said the US is a secular State - in theory - but is that written down in your Constitution?
Posted by: elhior_manwe
The christian right would love to turn this country into a state run for the christians and by the christians. They want to control everything from my bedroom, my kids classroom, the courts, the airwaves, the internet, my health, what I read, what we think, etc. etc. There is no middle ground here. I would fully support a radical secualr state. I dont believe in a christian god and dont want it in my life whatsoever. This bapist church is only making news because they or someone made the exclusion public, how many progressives, liberals, or democrats do you think have been forced out of there communities by this type of intolerance. Keep your beliefs away from me I want nothing to do with them, hopefully these people that have been thrown out of there church will realise that they would be better off without this particular church.
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
those are the important things. many people, both religious and secular, take the separation of church and state in the us constitution very seriously. if you dont understand why, consider living under sharia law if youre not a muslim.
|
Perhaps if the issues I mentioned pertained to seperation of church and state than I would agree with you. However, they do not. Ten commandments displayed in Little Rock? the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegence? are you kidding me?
Quote:
Originally posted by elhior_manwe
I would fully support a radical secualr state.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench
the greater good is best served by keeping religion out of our government, imho. someday, you might be in the religious minority. would you really want to be afflicted with laws and policies that are based on islam? cant eat pork or drink alcohol ya know. defiling the koran is punishable by death too.
|
A pure secular state is impossible, at least until religion is done away with entirely. One who considers themselves a believer in an all powerful God cannot be an advocate of complete seperation.
Religion (according to dictionary.com) is the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." One of the common premises of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is that God is all powerful, Alpha & Omega, Infinite. He cannot be contained for anyone or anything. Asking a follower of said doctrines to limit his/ her thoughts on God or the laws of God for whatever reason is asking him or her to sin. So is the case with church and state, rather, call it ethics and state.
When you box the two seperately, you are asking people to check their morals at the doorstep. All this accomplishes is a society of hypocrites, since laws are usually based on morals held by an overwhelming majority. I think there are already more than enough hypocrites to go around . I see enough of those at church on sunday, the people who think religion only wears well with their sunday best, like Mr. Cheney or even Mr. Chandler. Either you live your beliefs or you fake them.
What do secular fundamentalists loathe more? Uncompromising people of faith who will not sacrifice their morals for the approval of their peers? Or hypocrites who treat politics and religion with conflicting ethical values?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
A pure secular state is impossible, at least until religion is done away with entirely.
|
As I mentionned in another post, France & Belgium, amongst others, are examples of 100% secular states. Or in any case, they're damn close to it. For the simple reason that the said secularity is laid down in their Constitution ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
One who considers themselves a believer in an all powerful God cannot be an advocate of complete seperation.
|
But there are different ways to believe in that God ; ) Secularity, by ensuring the complete separation of religious & state structures, prevents any religion from taking precedence over the others, and therefore guarantees freedom of worship for ALL religions. Thus:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Asking a follower of said doctrines to limit his/ her thoughts on God or the laws of God for whatever reason is asking him or her to sin. […] When you box the two seperately, you are asking people to check their morals at the doorstep.
|
...you are again mixing up secularity with censorship, when it is actually quite the opposite as I just explained..
Therein lies the problem: you are proceeding from the - wrong - assumption that religion and its interference in legal & political matters are inexorably intertwined. Not So. Religion & secularity need not be mutually exclusive. In fact I'd take it even one step further:
You see, religion involves a set of beliefs & guidelines that supersedes man-made laws & institutions.
One of my friends, a christian protestant - and inveterate church-goer - once related this: after a sunday mass, one of the attendants in the congregation, apparently new to the church, the religion & its intricacies, approached the priest & asked him quite simply how man is supposed to go about his life down here on Earth. To this the priest replied: only after Life comes the Judgement (and, I suppose, for the damned: fire & the works, you know the story…and for the blessed: lush gardens, luscious women http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/bitman.gif etc etc. damn I’m getting carried away – OK, back on topic - )
And until then, man has to live his life on Earth – and basically, sort it out – on his own.
“Each for himself, God for all” one of my muslim acquaintances once said.
You may ask any follower of the different palestinian religions – Judaism, Christianism of Islam – I’m pretty sure they will concur on this.
So in this light not only does religion not preclude secularity – but secularity is a sine qua non of religious life. Because religion is a choice that is yours to make – and yours ONLY. On what ground can the State use religion to interfere with legal affairs? How dare one man impose his beliefs upon others? That alone would be in utter contradiction with what was previously said…
It would be like having the teacher providing you with the answers during an exam – what would be the point in having that exam in the first place?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Religion (according to dictionary.com) is the "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" or "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." One of the common premises of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is that God is all powerful, Alpha & Omega, Infinite.
|
But nowhere does the definition of religion imply ascribing a personality to this ‘supernatural power’, ie. the existence of a supreme deity. It merely states that something, not someone, brought about this whole mess (the Force? http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/kryten.gif)
Definition of religion: human recognition of superhuman controlling power, especially [BUT NOT NECESSARILY] of a personal God or Gods entitled to worship and obedience (Oxford dictionary ; )
Buddhism is such an example: buddhists do believe in something – whatever that is – some sort of Law – that guarantees reward & retribution. This Law can be considered “divine” in that it will always be beyond human understanding - it is infallible & cannot be circumvented (in the same way that for monotheists, God is perfect & cannot make mistakes) But it is not God as it has no personality. Buddhists do not actually reject the existence of a supreme God. They simply deem it irrelevant as it is unnecessary for there to be Justice. And since there is no belief in a super-god, there cannot be a "Buddhist State" in the sense that a would-be tyrant could not invoke the authority of a god to impose his own will upon his people (in "fundamentalist fashion") as there is a priori no such god. Is it any wonder that Buddhism is one of the few religions (if not the only one) that has never engendered any war in its name?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
One of the common premises of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is that God is all powerful, Alpha & Omega, Infinite. He cannot be contained for anyone or anything.
|
If so, then to merely ponder on the nature of such a God, that is a paradox by itself. It would be like trying to describe Light to someone who was born blind. And in that case, perhaps the most rational stance would be agnosticism, as the transcendence of a “superbeing” precludes any demonstration of its existence – or non-existence. But then, what better framework for an agnostic society...than a secular state?
|
|
|
|
|
