N.C. Church Kicks Out Members Who Do Not Support Bush

[Beet]

Associated Press
Sunday, May 8, 2005; Page A12

WAYNESVILLE, N.C., May 7 -- Some in Pastor Chan Chandler's flock wish he had a little less zeal for the GOP.

Members of the small East Waynesville Baptist Church say Chandler led an effort to kick out congregants who did not support President Bush. Nine members were voted out at a Monday church meeting in this mountain town about 120 miles west of Charlotte. Forty others in the 400-member congregation resigned in protest.

"He's the kind of pastor who says 'Do it my way or get out,' " said Selma Morris, the former church treasurer. "He's real negative all the time."

Looks like someone's got this church wrapped around their finger

[A18]

lol

[Alcon]

It's like people enjoy fitting into their own idiotic stereotypes sometimes.

[J.R. Brown]

If a church kicked any of it's members out for not supporting John Kerry, the right would be infuriated. I find the continuing hypocrasy hilarious.

[A18]

Actually, I wouldn't care. Any Kerry-supporting church is pretty backwards anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

That is utterly disgraceful and deeply unchristian. Shame on him.

[Gabu]

I have one question.  In the fourth paragraph the guy declares that his actions "were not politically motivated".  Now, the question is pretty simple: what the @%^#?

This is one of the reasons why, were I a Christian, I would likely be nondenominationally so.  I prefer not having to deal with this kind of crap in the process of pursuing spirituality.

[A18]

This is one of the reasons why, were I a Christian, I would likely be nondenominationally so.  I prefer not having to deal with this kind of crap in the process of pursuing spirituality.

I assure you most denominational churches aren't like that, lol

[dazzleman]

I don't agree with this church expelling members based on their politics.

It sounds like one of those extreme churches that probably repels more people from Christianity than it attracts.

Still, I think this is less consequential than the fact that a conservative has great difficulty getting tenure at a university.  In the academic and entertainment worlds, conservatives are effectively blacklisted in many cases because of their views.  While both are wrong, it's relatively easy to join another church, but it's difficult to get another career.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I agree.

However, its not just the right doing this.

The so-called Episcopal Church of the United States is doing pretty much the same thing.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050508-120546-7180r.htm

[Beet]

I don't agree with this church expelling members based on their politics.

It sounds like one of those extreme churches that probably repels more people from Christianity than it attracts.

Still, I think this is less consequential than the fact that a conservative has great difficulty getting tenure at a university.  In the academic and entertainment worlds, conservatives are effectively blacklisted in many cases because of their views.  While both are wrong, it's relatively easy to join another church, but it's difficult to get another career.

Um, this is completely untrue. Tenure cases are made based on amount of publications, with personal ability to get along with the other faculty as an additional factor to consider. The person's views are generally not considered.

Did the mythical liberal police give a test to Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson before allowing them to have a singing careers? Are they blacklisted now? Did they somehow escape the ACLU celebrity accreditors and the Democratic goon squad?

The reason there are more leftish professors are the same reason there are more leftish entertainers and movie stars. Because people who are attracted to those kinds of professions tend to have leftish views. Is the fact that liberals far outnumber conservatives in the science & engineering departments in the country's universities due to some liberal plot to indoctrinate students on the left-wing implications of Boyle's law? No.

[dazzleman]

I don't agree with this church expelling members based on their politics.

It sounds like one of those extreme churches that probably repels more people from Christianity than it attracts.

Still, I think this is less consequential than the fact that a conservative has great difficulty getting tenure at a university.  In the academic and entertainment worlds, conservatives are effectively blacklisted in many cases because of their views.  While both are wrong, it's relatively easy to join another church, but it's difficult to get another career.

Um, this is completely untrue. Tenure cases are made based on amount of publications, with personal ability to get along with the other faculty as an additional factor to consider. The person's views are generally not considered.

Did the mythical liberal police give a test to Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson before allowing them to have a singing careers? Are they blacklisted now? Did they somehow escape the ACLU celebrity accreditors and the Democratic goon squad?

The reason there are more leftish professors are the same reason there are more leftish entertainers and movie stars. Because people who are attracted to those kinds of professions tend to have leftish views. Is the fact that liberals far outnumber conservatives in the science & engineering departments in the country's universities due to some liberal plot to indoctrinate students on the left-wing implications of Boyle's law? No.

I do think that more liberals are attracted to universities and the entertainment industries.  I also believe that there is discrimination in both these professions against conservatives.  Sure there are exceptions, but those who are trying to get a start in either of these professions had better keep their political views quiet; once they make it, they can then "come out." 

If they come out as a conservative too soon, they will most likely not get tenure in a university, and Hollywood will crush their careers.  You can deny it, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think these two professions are another shining example of liberal "tolerance" and the hollowness of the liberal view when put into practice.

With respect to the Episcopal church, I would say there's a difference between expelling people over church doctrine (which I also don't believe in) and telling people for whom they must vote.  I don't agree with either, but telling people how to vote is worse, because it's not directly related to religious doctrine.

[Beet]

I don't agree with this church expelling members based on their politics.

It sounds like one of those extreme churches that probably repels more people from Christianity than it attracts.

Still, I think this is less consequential than the fact that a conservative has great difficulty getting tenure at a university.  In the academic and entertainment worlds, conservatives are effectively blacklisted in many cases because of their views.  While both are wrong, it's relatively easy to join another church, but it's difficult to get another career.

Um, this is completely untrue. Tenure cases are made based on amount of publications, with personal ability to get along with the other faculty as an additional factor to consider. The person's views are generally not considered.

Did the mythical liberal police give a test to Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson before allowing them to have a singing careers? Are they blacklisted now? Did they somehow escape the ACLU celebrity accreditors and the Democratic goon squad?

The reason there are more leftish professors are the same reason there are more leftish entertainers and movie stars. Because people who are attracted to those kinds of professions tend to have leftish views. Is the fact that liberals far outnumber conservatives in the science & engineering departments in the country's universities due to some liberal plot to indoctrinate students on the left-wing implications of Boyle's law? No.

I do think that more liberals are attracted to universities and the entertainment industries.  I also believe that there is discrimination in both these professions against conservatives.  Sure there are exceptions, but those who are trying to get a start in either of these professions had better keep their political views quiet; once they make it, they can then "come out." 

If they come out as a conservative too soon, they will most likely not get tenure in a university, and Hollywood will crush their careers.  You can deny it, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.  I think these two professions are another shining example of liberal "tolerance" and the hollowness of the liberal view when put into practice

The problem here is that you're the one making an accusation of bias, and thus the burden is on you to prove your accusation. Yet you have no evidence to back up what you say. There are gazillions of conservative celebrities out there, and most new celebrities aren't tested or usually don't even talk about their political views.

I know of several successful conservatives in academia, some of which have risen to the very top universities and had many articles published in the very top journals. In fact, I had even talked to one once and he told me that tenure decisions are made mainly based on publication productivity.

And further, not only have you not proven your point, you have not even presented any compelling motivation for discrimination. In the entertainment industry, the determinants of success are clearly based around talent shows, connections with promoters and good looks. The aim is to be a successful industry, just like business, rather than to promote an ideological view. Nor is there any rationale you've pointed out why university faculty in areas ranging from science to math to architecture to public relations all might be subject to political discrimination, as their fields have nothing to do with politics and they need never talk about politics during their entire career. Yet when you look at political donations by faculty they are just as liberal as those in the political science department.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Sounds like someone's tax-exempt status should be looked into...  (just like with the black pro-Democrat churches)

[dazzleman]

The problem here is that you're the one making an accusation of bias, and thus the burden is on you to prove your accusation. Yet you have no evidence to back up what you say. There are gazillions of conservative celebrities out there, and most new celebrities aren't tested or usually don't even talk about their political views.

I know of several successful conservatives in academia, some of which have risen to the very top universities and had many articles published in the very top journals. In fact, I had even talked to one once and he told me that tenure decisions are made mainly based on publication productivity.

And further, not only have you not proven your point, you have not even presented any compelling motivation for discrimination. In the entertainment industry, the determinants of success are clearly based around talent shows, connections with promoters and good looks. The aim is to be a successful industry, just like business, rather than to promote an ideological view. Nor is there any rationale you've pointed out why university faculty in areas ranging from science to math to architecture to public relations all might be subject to political discrimination, as their fields have nothing to do with politics and they need never talk about politics during their entire career. Yet when you look at political donations by faculty they are just as liberal as those in the political science department.

As I said before, we can agree to disagree.  I firmly believe that to come out as a conservative in Hollywood or academia before building a name for yourself is the kiss of death.  Maybe I'm not right in 100% of the cases, but that's what I believe is largely true.

As far as Hollywood goes, I think the type of fame matters in whether one can "get away with" being a conservative.  The examples you gave -Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson - are pop icons who got their fame directly from the public, without having to go through the filter of the studios with their poltical views publicly known.  I would bet that they didn't declare their views before they became famous.  But if you're looking to break into movies and are unknown, you'd best not declare yourself conservative.  It's basically the political version of the casting couch - there are certain things a powerless starlet has to do in order to have a shot at being famous, unless he/she is lucky enough to break out as a public phenomenon, in which case the Hollywood elite loses its power to a large degree.

Universities are notorious for their political backstabbing as well as their intolerance for anything but the "approved" line - which means liberalism.  Once a professor has tenure, he/she can be more honest, but before, watch out.  If you believe that granting of tenure is based purely on academic achievement, you could also believe in the tooth fairy.

I don't have the time to devote to proving this, so I throw it out as an opinion.  Since this isn't a court of law, I don't really have to prove it, and I recognize that you don't have to change your opinion either.  But I will continue to believe what I said based on anecdotal evidence that I have seen and heard.

[Brandon H]

Is this "people who did not support Bush" or "people who supported Kerry". Big difference there.

[Citizen James]

Is the fact that liberals far outnumber conservatives in the science & engineering departments in the country's universities due to some liberal plot to indoctrinate students on the left-wing implications of Boyle's law? No.

Boyle Mariotte law (political version):  PV =k, Where P is the pressure (or amount of force/strength of an arguement) and V is the volume in cubic meters of hot air expelled in ranting (k is a konstant).  Thus, the strength of arguements tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of hot air expelled in it's making.   That's why there's so much talk radio - it's pathetically poor debate replaced by massive volumes of rhetoric.

[TeePee4Prez]

Is the Catholic church next?

[Keystone Phil]

Is the Catholic church next?

You're just looking for a reason to complain, aren't you? Just leave the Church if you're so unhappy!

[TeePee4Prez]

Is the Catholic church next?

You're just looking for a reason to complain, aren't you? Just leave the Church if you're so unhappy!

Don't you think I have a very good reason to?

[Keystone Phil]

Is the Catholic church next?

You're just looking for a reason to complain, aren't you? Just leave the Church if you're so unhappy!

Don't you think I have a very good reason to?

A very dumb question for you to ask me if I just get done making it seem like you shouldn't complain.

[riceowl]

http://www.wearesorry.com/vision.html

[Alcon]

Is this "people who did not support Bush" or "people who supported Kerry". Big difference there.

There is?

http://www.wearesorry.com/vision.html

That is a very interesting site.

[Keystone Phil]

Is this "people who did not support Bush" or "people who supported Kerry". Big difference there.

There is?

People who did not support Bush could include Constitution party supporters, for example. I'm sure they'd still be welcome.

[Alcon]

Is this "people who did not support Bush" or "people who supported Kerry". Big difference there.

There is?

People who did not support Bush could include Constitution party supporters, for example. I'm sure they'd still be welcome.

Well, yes, I assume, but is the difference really that big? It's still discluding people just because they disagree with your politics.