[Fiddlstix]

This could become a fun thread, imho.

Click the Graphic J

Have Some Popcorn
Watch The Fun

[Alia]

hm. During CA's Prop 209, SF Bay Area black church leaders were PUBLISHED as saying they'd banish from their churches anyone who didn't actively FIGHT 209. Of course, they mumbled afterwards, that it wasn't about politics; but *real* civil rights. I can only be glad I wasn't a "dissenting" member of that church, right? Right.

Churches are not public office or public entities. Furthermore, the SF Episcopalian leadership went even further -- locking out parishioners who didn't go along with taking the host from gay or lesbian clergy. And? The church will survive or it won't.

But given the numbers, the liberal "Episcopalian Church" is smarting given their own policies of the past 30+ years.

And wasn't it Democrats over the past year suggesting that "churches" should be audited or somesuch for "politicking" in the church? Right. No one is noticing...

[I Like Lincoln]

Another expample of America's freigntening convergence of church and state. The world is already on notice that the USA is becoming a Christian state. It's very sad.

[workerbee]

Maybe it's me but.... I'm thinking there must be a little more to this story.

[CharlesWayneCT]

NOTHING in the constitution prohibits a pastor from requiring his flock to vote a certain way as a condition of membership in a church.

The 1st amendment protects RELIGION from the hand of the state. It does NOT prevent religion from having a hand in picking the representatives OF the state.

There are many reasons that you wouldn't want to belong to a church that would do something like this (and I still imagine there is more to this story). But there is nothing at all subversive or anti-democratic about it.

Since it has nothing to do with the constitution, or how government works, nor is it in any way related to or part of a discussion about how government SHOULD be doing, or the solution to any of the problems we might face, OF COURSE the democrats will be talking about it.

That's what they do, talk about things they can't change that are of no consequence, simply to get people riled up against the foundations of our society like religion.

There has to be something ironic about DU (where you are banished for even expressing a coherent argument which violates the orthodoxy) complaining about a church having a banishment policy of membership (again presuming that this is true which we don't know).

[HamiltonJay]

There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out

I'm glad I'm not a member of a church that has by-laws on the tenants of the faith, and what to do with those who violate them.

[em2vn]

The minister missed the boat on this deal. The idea is to keep people in the pews even if they disagree with the minister.