Church v. State

I wonder if we’ll ever see a supreme court case with that title?
In any event I’'ve got an article here from the Raleigh News & Observer straight out of beautiful Waynesville, North Carolina. Waynesville is the seat of Haywood County and is about 30 miles west of Asheville on I-40. I'’m sure it’s a quite lovely place, but, well...
Here’s the link to the article on the N&O’s website, but I'’m going to reproduce the thing here. It'’s a short article.

"The minister of a Haywood County Baptist church is telling members of his congregation that if they're Democrats, they either need to find another place of worship or support President Bush.
Already, the Reverend Chan Chandler has ex-communicated nine members of East Waynesville Baptist Church. Another 40 members have left in protest.
During last Sunday's sermon, he acknowledged that church members were upset because he named people, and he says he'll do it again because he has to according to the word of God.
Chandler could not be reached for comment today, but says his actions weren’t politically motivated.
One former church member says Chandler told some of the members that if they didn't support George Bush, they needed to resign their positions and get out of the church, or go to the altar, repent and agree to vote for Bush.
A former church treasurer says she's at church to worship God and not the preacher."

Here'’s my take. First of all, as a Democrat who occasionally attends church, I knew this was coming. Even certain Methodists at certain churches here in Tampa have been known to telephone certain other Methodists (ahem) and beg them to switch party registration and vote for Bush because.. well, because of a lot of reasons. Among them, John Kerry is/was a sodomizer. This is the truth, folks; I may write fiction in my spare time but I'’m starting to think fact is actually less believable.

Second, does anyone remember the establishment clause in the Constitution? Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? I'’m going to be very bold here, but I don’t actually think this was done to protect government or people from religion. I think it was done to protect religion from government. And this is a perfect example. As soon as folks like Chan start forgetting the distinctions between the two things, you get jackassery of this sort, where a church (not the government!) starts restricting the free exercise of its own members’' religion on the basis of their beliefs about government.

I want to say a lot of things here but they all involve a great deal of foul language so I won'’t. After all, the article, and Chan’'s (sorry, I can'’t and won’'t call him Rev.) actions, pretty much speak for themselves.

This, of course, is nothing more than what the Republicans have done to themselves. They wanted all the Christians to vote for them. Now some pseudo-Christians (tell me what, if anything, is Christian about Chan’'s actions) are saying that you can’'t be Christian without being Republican. I'’m almost positive that'’s not anywhere in the Bible. I don'’t even think it'’s in the Book of Mormon.

In any event, if you can'’t be a Christian without being a Republican, how much farther is it to you can’'t be a Republican if you aren'’t a Christian? And a pretty wacky fundamentalist one at that. I think a lot of the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, and other types in this country are already nominal Democrats, but continued actions by the likes of Chan here will solidify that for... well, at least until I'’m dead anyway. Whether the country even makes it that long or not I don'’t know.

Of course two weeks ago many churches around the country presented a broadcast by Bill Frist among others (I think DeLay might have been involved, but all the lying, cheating, and stealing have got to be wearing thin with many actual Christians) talking about how the Democrats are against “people of faith” and are trying to prevent such people from sitting on the bench. So, in other words, the 204 judges nominated by Bush and approved by the whole Senate, including Democrats, must all be atheists. Only the 10 who have been filibustered are actually people of faith. Uh-huh.

And some churches actually agreed to play this pablum for their congregations. I studiously avoided church that weekend because I didn'’t want to know if the church I attend occasionally was going to play it or not. If they had, I never could have gone back there. I'’m happier just not knowing.

Am I the only person who thinks religion is no topic for a political speech, and politics should never be brought up in the church? Maybe I am.

"Go to the altar, repent, and agree to vote for Bush." Chan should take some of his own advice, go to the altar, repent, and agree to leave politics out of his pulpit or give up his “ministry.”