Open the flood gates - Trump vows to "destroy" limits on churches political activity

[351Cleveland]

Well, the history behind the Johnson Amendment is interesting to say the least. Numerous times churches have actively sought to "violate" the law in order to force litigation in court, as the law is (I think) intentionally vague. In all these years, despite the efforts, not even a blatant attempt to violate that law has been able to garner the interest of the Justice Department or IRS. It is also interesting to note that it wasn't originally passed because of some great need to deal with churches electioneering. Johnson was pissed off because a couple of non-profits (not religious) backed a primary challenger against him.

Long story short, it was not passed to preserve some sort of church-state division, but rather as a weapon to be used at the whim of politicians whenever they needed it. That is why it is so nebulously defined... so it can mean anything at anytime it is needed.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't usually like religion as a whole, but I am all for church groups helping to register their communities to vote and church groups providing transportation to & from voting booths.

 

[raildogg]

I don't usually like religion as a whole, but I am all for church groups helping to register their communities to vote and church groups providing transportation to & from voting booths.

Yep, vote in more corporate owned bloodthirsty liars.

Mark Twain: "If voting made a difference, they wouldn't let us do it"

 

[Thebobo]

I doubt Tump was ever religious or been to church for decades. But now he is surrounded by religious ideologs shoving this christian crap down the country's throat.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, the history behind the Johnson Amendment is interesting to say the least. Numerous times churches have actively sought to "violate" the law in order to force litigation in court, as the law is (I think) intentionally vague. In all these years, despite the efforts, not even a blatant attempt to violate that law has been able to garner the interest of the Justice Department or IRS.

If that's true, why do we get claims of evil persecution, like this?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...trump-addresses-values-voters-irs-christians/

It is also interesting to note that it wasn't originally passed because of some great need to deal with churches electioneering. Johnson was pissed off because a couple of non-profits (not religious) backed a primary challenger against him.

I don't think you can substantiate that.

Long story short, it was not passed to preserve some sort of church-state division, but rather as a weapon to be used at the whim of politicians whenever they needed it. That is why it is so nebulously defined... so it can mean anything at anytime it is needed.

The only nebulosity is between your ears.

We'll have Baptist branded political campaigns before you know it. God on our Side! It'll short circuit the rubes' brains!

 

[Jhhnn]

I doubt Tump was ever religious or been to church for decades. But now he is surrounded by religious ideologs shoving this christian crap down the country's throat.

Gotta get 'em into a post-truth friendly headset while they're still young.

 

[raildogg]

I just went to Breitbart.com because I have not really been there before. I saw the following:

-Obama trying to start coup or something to that effect
-Hollywood celebrities are attacking Trump
-Jews being attacked in England
-Michael Moore featured prominently
-UC Berkeley gets most of their funding from US government

And much more!

Just like most of the other online crowd, it's mostly fear porn.

I'm sorry but I think this internet is responsible for spreading so much hate now. Guys like Trump getting elected are partly due to the internet. Of course Bannon would never have gotten to where he without the help of the internet. Same with Milo. On and on.

 

[Meghan54]

I don't think you can substantiate that.

Actually, he was correct in that Johnson did author and sponsor the bill which became law, called the Johnson Amendment (which is an incorrect label, as it's not an amendment but a law.)

From PolitiFact:

The restriction was championed by LBJ in 1954 when Johnson was a U.S. senator running for re-election. A conservative nonprofit group that wanted to limit the treaty-making ability of the president produced material that called for electing his primary opponent, millionaire rancher-oilman Dudley Dougherty, and defeating Johnson. There was no church involved.

Johnson, then Democratic minority leader, responded by introducing an amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code dealing with tax-exempt charitable organizations, including groups organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literacy and educational purposes, or to prevent cruelty to children or animals. It said, in effect, that if you want to be absolved from paying taxes, you couldn't be involved in partisan politics.

There was no record of any debate around the amendment.

The law says all such organizations "are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." That includes contributions to political campaigns and any form of public statement for or against a candidate or group of candidates.

Nonpartisan, unbiased voter education or similar activities such as church-organized voter registration drives are allowed.

Historically, that hasn't stopped some religious organizations from issuing endorsements anyway.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-lyndon-johnson-passed-legisla/

Of course, what's not mentioned is it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, he was correct in that Johnson did author and sponsor the bill which became law, called the Johnson Amendment (which is an incorrect label, as it's not an amendment but a law.)

From PolitiFact:


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-lyndon-johnson-passed-legisla/

Of course, what's not mentioned is it was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican.

I challenged this part of it-

Johnson was pissed off because a couple of non-profits (not religious) backed a primary challenger against him.

 

[kage69]

Build the wall! Build the wall!

The wall we need now more than ever, no question about it.

Yep, Donald Dump is going to kowtow away to the evangelicals now. Renumerate people for swallowing their morals and integrity and work up a little impeachment insurance at the same time.

 

[disappoint]

Terrible idea IMO, I don't want to see more political involvement by churches, I'd rather see less.

Reported for being anti-Jesus. The power of Christ compels you!

 

[Jhhnn]

Aw, Hell- it just means big money donors can launder tax free money spent on political campaigns through Jerry's church & remain completely anonymous at the same time.

Jerry takes a bit off the top & everybody gets what they pay for.

With God on our side! makes a great slogan.

 

[MongGrel]

GWB had that down pat, Trump took the cues from him and probably has a line he calls once a week, I think Dubya called it his "time to call the loonies".

It probably worked well enough to push him into the POTUS, now he's running with it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/bushand.html

 

[disappoint]

I just went to Breitbart.com because I have not really been there before. I saw the following:

-Obama trying to start coup or something to that effect
-Hollywood celebrities are attacking Trump
-Jews being attacked in England
-Michael Moore featured prominently
-UC Berkeley gets most of their funding from US government

And much more!

Just like most of the other online crowd, it's mostly fear porn.

I'm sorry but I think this internet is responsible for spreading so much hate now. Guys like Trump getting elected are partly due to the internet. Of course Bannon would never have gotten to where he without the help of the internet. Same with Milo. On and on.

And you don't think this thread is full of fear porn? If you think this changes anything, Trump has played you for a fool.

 

[sdifox]

Churches are made up of people all of whom have freedom of speech just like other people. Put your big boy pants on. A church is just a group of people that follow a specific phylosophy for life. Not only that but they all vote also.

As long as they get rid of their tax free status, they can wade into politics.

 

[MongGrel]

And you don't think this thread is full of fear porn? If you think this changes anything, Trump has played you for a fool.

I think it is more disgust than fear.

 

[disappoint]

I think it is more disgust than fear.

You know what's disgusting? Vomit. Make a thread on vomit and see how many replies it gets. No where near the popularity of threads like this one. That is because fear motivates people to action more than disgust. They fear this will take the country in the wrong direction.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Reported for being anti-Jesus. The power of Christ compels you!

Jesus? Didn't he get sent back to Mexico?

 

[MongGrel]

Trump seems to have officially went full blown fake Evangelical.

https://www.reuters.tv/v/4Bb/2017/02/02/new-trump-order-could-restrict-gay-rights

 

[soundforbjt]

Trump seems to have officially went full blown fake Evangelical.

https://www.reuters.tv/v/4Bb/2017/02/02/new-trump-order-could-restrict-gay-rights

Isn't that Milo guy supposed to be gay? I'm sure he'll be right on this...

 

[superstition]

Isn't that Milo guy supposed to be gay? I'm sure he'll be right on this...

And Peter Thiel?

LOL

As long as they've got a gravy train going do they care about the rest? Ask Ann Coulter about women's rights.

Summary of video:

1) When it was leaked that Trump was going to get rid of some equality for gays the White House denied it, hoping that the issue would be able to be done quietly.

2) The plan being circulated will let government contractors heavily discriminate against gay employees, not just let religious groups discriminate.

 

[pcgeek11]

You need to include black churches that people like Hillary and Obama have used for generations as mouthpieces. Never understood "You can't do it but come to our meeting and discuss our support for ourselves!" Nope.

IMO all churches need to keep themselves out of politics and the state have a hands off regarding religion. It works both ways.

I agree.

 

[superstition]

I agree.

It's impossible for anything to be "out of politics".

Here's a simple example. Let's say a Mormon family has five boys and two girls. One girl and one boy are born gay. Now what? Are they suddenly not gay because they've been born into an anti-gay religion? Sorry, but those kids are human beings, not religious property. They are not their parents' property nor are they the property of their community.

This is just one example of how it's impossible to separate church and state. The only thing one can do is try not to play favorites — and — most importantly, govern from a science-based fact-based point of view. That inevitably means clashing with religious fantasy and curtailing its influence.

One of the most effective tools in maintaining elite privilege and power is convincing the masses that they're divided into little autonomous bubbles instead of being part of a single community. The Amish are a great example. What's going to happen when increased population density in Ohio causes non-Amish to encroach on the land Amish are occupying? I'll tell you what will happen — the Amish will lose.

 

[pcgeek11]

It's impossible for anything to be "out of politics".

Here's a simple example. Let's say a Mormon family has five boys and two girls. One girl and one boy are born gay. Now what? Are they suddenly not gay because they've been born into an anti-gay religion? Sorry, but those kids are human beings, not religious property. They are not their parents' property nor are they the property of their community.

This is just one example of how it's impossible to separate church and state. The only thing one can do is try not to play favorites — and — most importantly, govern from a science-based fact-based point of view. That inevitably means clashing with religious fantasy and curtailing its influence.

One of the most effective tools in maintaining elite privilege and power is convincing the masses that they're divided into little autonomous bubbles instead of being part of a single community. The Amish are a great example. What's going to happen when increased population density in Ohio causes non-Amish to encroach on the land Amish are occupying? I'll tell you what will happen — the Amish will lose.

I don't know how you managed to get "gay" into the mix. Your analogy made no sense to me.

A real simple rule.

The church should not preach politics, the government should not dictate religion.

The church isn't a single religious person, and the government isn't a single politician.

 

[superstition]

simple

Yes. Simple.