Baptists Put An End To Tolerance

The fundanazis in charge of various southern baptist organizations continue to demonstrate that lack of concern for historic baptist distinctives. Among the things that baptists of the sbc type have claimed as deeply held spiritucal convictions is the idea of the autonomy of the local church. The moderates who were run out of the sbc over the past few years were always strong supporters of this doctrine even when it led to them being verbally abused by those who felt called to judge the behavior and belief of some congregation other than their own. Among the big issues back in the 70s that got the moderates in trouble, was allowing churches that practiced the more controversial spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues, to remain members in good standing. But the current leadership has consistently just given lip service to this historic baptist doctrine. This is nowhere more apparent than in today's press release from the Associated Baptist Press, an alternative to the sbc's official mouth organ, the baptist press. The first article which demonstrated this lack of concern for local church autonomy was about NC baptists who will no longer allow cooperating churches to funnel their gifts through the convention to anyone but "approved" baptist concerns. Particularly targeted with the gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a splinter group formed by some of the aforementioned moderates. The statement which reveals the somewhat lack of Christ-like spirit from those opposed to the open giving plan came from Eric Page, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus, who said "that refusing
to take a strong stand would promote "tolerance" of a group with which most North Carolina Baptists disagree. (We certainly wouldn't want any church to promote tolerance now would we?)
Page illustrated his point by saying the cartoon character Popeye took abuse only so long before he "popped out" a can of spinach and put an end to it."

Are you ready for this line?!?!

"It's time for us to pop out a can of spinach and put an end to tolerance," he said.

Farther down in the same ABP release we find baptists isolating themselves even more.

"On Nov. 12, in a front-page story, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke the news that the Georgia Baptist Convention has approved a new policy giving GBC executives the freedom to refuse donations from churches it finds to be out of step with Southern Baptist beliefs. The policy move is aimed (for now) at First Baptist Church Decatur, because it called a woman, Julie Pennington-Russell, to serve as pastor."

So now Georgia baptists don't even have to vote on it. Their executives can decide for them which churches are "out of step." This is even more tragic when you consider the number of times Georgia baptists and other "good" southerners refused to censure churches for blatant racism because of local church autonomy. If you want a a good example of this just google "racism beyond the grave."

You people out there who have remained in your southern baptist church with its connection to the sbc better be aware. It is only a matter of time before "they" find some reason to come after you.

More on Palin Watch--Hypocrites

This is truly an historic day. I finally found a Cal Thomas statement that I can agree with. In a column about the media unfair treatment of Sarah Palin, his opening line is "We are such hypocrites." He can just stop there and he will have for once spoken the truth. But no he has to go on and castigate the media for piling on the Palin family because of Bristol's pregnancy. Doesn't he realize that the only reason the media is piling on is because Sarah Palin represents herself as part of that group of Christians who have been piling on other people for years who crossed the line of their loudly proclaimed family values. But somehow, when the plank is in her eye, we are not supposed to notice it. I want to thank one of my conservative friends for making me aware of Cal's column.

I am truly sorry that Bristol Palin's sex life has become a topic of conversation for the whole world. I know she didn't ask for that. But the one person responsible for it is her mother, the righteous Sarah Palin. Supposedly she knew her daughter was pregnant when she accepted the nomination and surely she is not so politically naive as to think that it would be kept secret. Should candidates' families be off-limits, absolutely. Will they be if there is any hint of scandal? Absolutely not. Why was Chelsea Clinton constantly bombarded with questions about her father's sexual practices? No child should be subjected to that, but it was a sure fire way to get ratings and sell papers. And if you don't think the horde of news people are in it for the money just ask Rupert Murdoch.

If you want to read the Thomas column here is the link, just remember if you want the truth just read the first line.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2008/09/04/what_standards

McCain's Lobbyists Come Out of the Closet

A recent letter from Howard Dean notes:

I've got a joke for you.

Last week, John McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, sent a memo to the McCain campaign staff about a brand new "conflicts policy."

This policy was designed to identify staffers with "conflicts" working within McCain's organization after three advisers resigned from the campaign. One was found to be working for an anti-Democrat "527" organization, and the other two -- a regional campaign manager and the convention CEO -- were found to have lobbied for the Myanmar junta in 2003.

Here's the punch line: Rick Davis, author of the memo and the person in charge of finding these "conflicts" within the campaign, founded his own lobbying firm, and, according to the Politico, "has made at least $2.8 million lobbying Congress since 1998."

But it gets worse. Charlie Black is McCain's chief political adviser. Over the past seven years, lobbying filings show he's used his connections with George Bush and Dick Cheney to lobby administration officials for dozens of wealthy clients. The Washington Post reported that "Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus."

John McCain's commitment to keeping Washington lobbyists out of his campaign is a joke -- but it's not funny. It's shocking. Since Davis sent around his "conflicts" memo, two more people have been shamed out of the McCain campaign. But why not Davis and Black? Of all the possible conflicts revealed, isn't lobbying from the campaign bus the worst? And does McCain care that his campaign manager made millions after starting his own lobbying shop? If those are acceptable, what exactly did McCain find about the people they let go?

Tell John McCain to fire Rick Davis and Charlie Black today. If he's really committed to keeping "conflicts" out of his campaign, he should have no trouble cleaning house the way he needs to.

http://www.democrats.org/FireTheLobbyists

This past Sunday, John McCain defended the situation by telling reporters that his lobbyist advisers are "not in the lobbying business; they've been out of that business." And just yesterday, John McCain said he wants to have "the most comprehensive and transparent of any presidential campaign in history" when it comes to lobbyists. How can that be true when people like Charlie Black admit he's conducting his lobbying business on the back of the bus?

John McCain and his campaign can't have it both ways. On the one hand, he says "ethics and transparency are not election year buzz words." But, on the other hand, he and his top campaign advisors have no problem fudging about their lobbying records. When pressed on the discrepancy, they give a flip excuse: Americans don't care.

Demand honesty and openness in politics. Tell John McCain to fire Charlie Black and Rick Davis today:
http://www.democrats.org/FireTheLobbyists
Let's keep McCain accountable,

Howard Dean

Can You Spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E ?

The shrub's latest attempt to show that he actually knows something about foreign policy reveals once again the fantasyland he has been living in for seven years. Barack Obama has promised to actually sit down and talk to leaders of countries that the shrub has done nothing but threaten or ignore. What a concept, diplomacy by talking instead of shouting or shooting. But the shrub responded, "It will send the wrong message. ... It will give great status to those who have suppressed human rights and human dignity." He obviously doesn't realize that nothing suppresses human rights and human dignity like an ill-conceived, ill-planned, ill-managed and probably ill-egal war. It makes you wonder what kind of insulation his handlers keep him wrapped up in.