Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Politics /= Religion

From ABC News affiliate WLOS (serving Western NC and parts of SC), and my friend Sue Summer:

7:30 am, 5/6/05 - Religion and Politics Clash
Religion and politics clash over a local church's declaration that Democrats are not welcome.

East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say "the actions were not politically motivated." There are questions about whether the by-laws were followed when the members were thrown out.
Coincidentally, well before I read this, I pointed out to my husband this morning that we're just at the beginning of Bush's second term: we're only five months into it.

There are many things I could say here, but just for starters, how the heck can the pastor say that his actions weren't politically motivated if he's trying to dismiss members based on their lack of support for a politician?


( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 6th, 2005 10:15 pm (UTC)

And on the topic of Bush's second term, just wait for his third! I'm not saying there _will_ be a second term, but I won't be surprised. Laws or no. Remember, in a previous world war, presidential elections were suspended until the next go around. We're techinically at war now. If we're "more at war" in 2007, say bye-bye to elections and hello to Emperor Bush.
May. 6th, 2005 11:27 pm (UTC)
Which World War are you referring to? The U.S. has never suspended national elections.

Whether the elections or say 1864 or 1944 were actually fair is of course another question.
May. 6th, 2005 11:58 pm (UTC)
I believe it was the second world war. Are you completely sure? It was told to me by a credible source, so I never bothered to actually "fact check" it.

Either way, I can see Bush trying to pull something like it. Remember, prior to the 2004 elections, his administration was investigating the proceedure to do just that in event of terrorist actions. Granted their statements were delaying the elections for only a day, but how much more is it a stretch?

Hm, now that I think about it, I _think_ I read in a news article (like CNN or NY Times type news, not a blog or such) how such had happened before during WWII. This was almost a year ago, so some points may be a bit fuzzy.
May. 7th, 2005 01:07 am (UTC)
Elections were not suspended during WW II.
May. 7th, 2005 01:21 am (UTC)
Were they ever?

I'm not married to either, but I remember viewing the information as extremely credible. It's been a long time since I first received it, as in 2 years or so, so my recollection could be very jaded. If I'm mistaken, that's fine. I'm more than willing to own up to that. Just confused to all heck now.
May. 7th, 2005 01:48 am (UTC)
Okay, just did some quick Googling to check various news sites. Apparently, you are completely correct. There has never been a postponement of presidential elections in U.S. history. Wow. I'm a complete idiot. Who or what ever told me that originally, I completely believed. Of course, it sounded reasonable and believable to me in the context / time it was told. After all, I wouldn't be surprised if presidential elections were postponed during one of the world wars. It was supposedly done to maintain the strong and informed command structure already in place. If it was the 1940s again, and I was told the elections were cancelled because of WWII, I don't think I would have minded. That was a pretty big deal, and I don't know how confidant I would be in any new president coming in and having to take command of the military forces as opposed to the guy who was already in place and up to speed.

Now, ask me if Bush should stay in office when we go to war with Iran, and I'll say no. Ask me if I think he might try to pull a third term out of his butt by claiming the above, and I'll say yes. He and his administration did actually look into doing that for the 2004 election. (Google on the words "election presidential U.S. cancel", and you'll see _tons_ of links on the matter.) I can see them pulling it for 2008. Some editorial sites put forth the idea their doing so in 2004 was only a "testing the water" for the feasibility of doing it in the future.

.. I'm ranting now, I think. Or at least rambling. I've been up way too long.
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )


Twin Peaks: Snoqualmie

Latest Month

January 2019

About Me:


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Ideacodes