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

[Thebobo]

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

A lot of news sources confirms (you can google if you care to) he is gay Not that it matters other then being conservative and gay is rather rare although you did have the Log Cabin Republicans while back. He was banned from Twitter a while back as well for abusive racist comments. He should be banned from public for hair like that.

 

[disappoint]

A lot of news sources confirms (you can google if you care to) he is gay Not that it matters other then being conservative and gay is rather rare although you did have the Log Cabin Republicans while back. He was banned from Twitter a while back as well for abusive racist comments. He should be banned from public for hair like that.

You forgot to mention that hideous shirt and those goofy looking sunglasses.

 

[interchange]

Generally speaking, I'm not in favor of giving more power to Scientology.

 

[agent00f]

Did a bit of looking into the background of taxes, politics and churches and it was LBJ who was responsible in bring it about. I'd be worried that Trump could simply reverse Johnson's order, but in fact it was sponsored legislation that created our present way of doing things.

Trump therefore has to do this by legislative means and Republicans are more likely to go with this as a group, it only needs a few defectors to block. I didn't see it noted but a position was almost blocked with the help of only two Republicans. One more and that would have ended that nominee.

In short this promise may not be kept.

The church got active in politics as a result of the IRS crackdown on the use of religious schools to maintain segregation:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ort_for_segregation_not_against_abortion.html

 

[mxnerd]

If church, temple, mosque want tax deduction, then no political activities, period.

You can't have both.

 

[superstition]

being conservative and gay is rather rare

"Conservative" — usually meaningless claptrap in American political discourse

Like Ann Coulter being a token woman who spouts anti-woman rhetoric, to make money. Meanwhile, this woman who allegedly doesn't think women should vote had no problem leaving the kitchen to attend law school.

People who want to actually be conservative can become Amish instead of doing so much posturing.

 

[senseamp]

There are going to be a lot of "churches" set up to funnel tax exempt money to campaign ads.

 

[LegendKiller]

All because a non profit called johnson a commie. Ohh noes.

 

[Jhhnn]

All because a non profit called johnson a commie. Ohh noes.

You know that how, exactly? Or is that just another convenient conserva-myth, like the Earth being 6000 years old?

It's not like we should make political spending tax deductible or that we should encourage whoring out the pulpit, is it?

 

[Thebobo]

All because a non profit called johnson a commie. Ohh noes.

Fist time I ever herd Johnson called a commie. You know he escalated the vietnam war to fight communist? Or you just trollin?

 

[Jhhnn]

Fist time I ever herd Johnson called a commie. You know he escalated the vietnam war to fight communist? Or you just trollin?

He's parroting another conserva-myth.

 

[trenchfoot]

For the fact that Trump is taking a stance on this issue in favor of religious organizations having the ability to, as it were, preach politics from the pulpit, he has already scored whatever political points he wanted out of it. The more controversy it stirs, the better he likes it, as it further drives the religious fundies into his influence, no matter how anti-Christian his character and actions really are.

That he is literally exploiting the Christians to further his personal agenda, and that the religious fundies are willingly allowing themselves to make a deal with the devil in order to further their own agenda is what really irks me about all of this.

 

[IronWing]

These churches are the farthest thing from God or Jesus as one can get.

There is no God in these churches. The only thing they have are corrupt men trying to con people. But then again, so is Trump. He's another self claimed Christian who is acting the opposite of what a man of God acts.

^^ And this is why we need separation of church and state. It isn't to protect the sensibilities of atheists; it is to prevent the religious from using government to tear each other apart (literally in some cases).

 

[momeNt]

What other Tax Codes should we employ in order to restrict protections from the Bill of Rights? This Johnson act basically signifies a "pay to play" scheme where by trading your "duty" to be taxed, you give up your voice. Sounds American when you put it that way huh?

 

[LegendKiller]

Fist time I ever herd Johnson called a commie. You know he escalated the vietnam war to fight communist? Or you just trollin?

Are you stupid or something? Why don't you read up on the origins of this amendment. Johnson didn't like being challenged by anti communist democrats supported anti communist non profits in his own state and decided to slap them down.

This is historical fact. That nobody bothered to research it just shows how stupid the left really is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you stupid or something? Why don't you read up on the origins of this amendment. Johnson didn't like being challenged by anti communist democrats supported anti communist non profits in his own state and decided to slap them down.

This is historical fact. That nobody bothered to research it just shows how stupid the left really is.

Mere assertion on your part. Challenged to provide evidence you merely repeat & deny that the burden of proof is on you.

 

[IronWing]

What other Tax Codes should we employ in order to restrict protections from the Bill of Rights? This Johnson act basically signifies a "pay to play" scheme where by trading your "duty" to be taxed, you give up your voice. Sounds American when you put it that way huh?

It's a voluntary tax break. No one is forced into giving up any rights. I find it amusing that, on one hand, churches so jealously guard their tax break while, on the other hand, claim that they don't have any profits to tax anyway as they spend it all on charity. If churches are the do-gooders they claim they are then tax exempt status should be meaningless for them and churches that wish to bribe politicians engage in political activities should give up tax exempt status and come out swinging.

 

[momeNt]

It's a voluntary tax break. No one is forced into giving up any rights. I find it amusing that, on one hand, churches so jealously guard their tax break while, on the other hand, claim that they don't have any profits to tax anyway as they spend it all on charity. If churches are the do-gooders they claim they are then tax exempt status should be meaningless for them and churches that wish to bribe politicians engage in political activities should give up tax exempt status and come out swinging.

Is that justification? Would you support tax breaks for people who chose to not vote/campaign/donate to a candidate? Taxation should not be a basis to then strip rights when you then are not taxed.

Please also understand that this applies to all 501(c)(3). Not just churches.

 

[Jhhnn]

What other Tax Codes should we employ in order to restrict protections from the Bill of Rights? This Johnson act basically signifies a "pay to play" scheme where by trading your "duty" to be taxed, you give up your voice. Sounds American when you put it that way huh?

Please. It reinforces the necessary separation between church & state.

The whole point is that contributions to religious organizations are tax free & anonymous for the givers.

So if big money contributors want to hire Jerry Falwell Jr To campaign for them from the pulpit they'd be free to do so.

"Tell you what, Jerry- We'll arrange for your organization to receive $50M If you'll hire our friends at Freedom Works at $40M to create a political campaign with your brand on it. Keep the difference, OK?"

The only objection Jerry might voice is that his cut isn't big enough...

I liked it a lot better when Fundies stuck to saving their own souls.

 

[momeNt]

Please. It reinforces the necessary separation between church & state.

The whole point is that contributions to religious organizations are tax free & anonymous for the givers.

So if big money contributors want to hire Jerry Falwell Jr To campaign for them from the pulpit they'd be free to do so.

"Tell you what, Jerry- We'll arrange for your organization to receive $50M If you'll hire our friends at Freedom Works at $40M to create a political campaign with your brand on it. Keep the difference, OK?"

The only objection Jerry might voice is that his cut isn't big enough...

I liked it a lot better when Fundies stuck to saving their own souls.

So you think it was something that was overlooked for approximately 200 years? IRS Tax laws regulating 501(c)(3) has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

Per Thomas Jefferson.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

So you are just displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. Bear in mind that this applies to all 501(c)(3), it's not like he is saying he will strike it down for JUST religion organizations, or specific organizations, now that would be "respecting an establishment of religion" and specific intermingling of church and state.

People are constantly repeating that this is about church political activity and not charitable organizations as a whole. Would you agree that it at the very least is a false narrative? Are you able to do a little side-shuffle with your shilling? Or must you strictly adhere to the guidelines set before you?

 

[Thebobo]

Are you stupid or something? Why don't you read up on the origins of this amendment. Johnson didn't like being challenged by anti communist democrats supported anti communist non profits in his own state and decided to slap them down.

This is historical fact. That nobody bothered to research it just shows how stupid the left really is.

Some advice, If you really want someone to read your post best not to insult them in your first sentence. But since its monday I will respond.

1. I might be stupid but i am something.
2. Why do you support the war on Separation of church and state?
3. I don't care. I like the law,

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I didn't know the history of this law, but Google is telling me that it most likely was a result of Johnson having to face big money from non-profits during a senate election, running against a fellow named Dudley Dougherty. I can also find at least one political ad from 1954 where Johnson is accused of not attacking communists enough. Seems pretty clear that this law originated as a political maneuver, whether or not you think the law is justified. (Interestingly I've also found a brief blurb from a biography where LBJ apparently got the FBI to give him information on this same Dougherty guy, lol, Johnson was such a shitbag).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-lyndon-johnson-passed-legisla/
https://www.colorlines.com/articles/why-are-non-profits-banned-politicking-begin (even a left-leaning source agrees that the law's inception was motivated by Johnson's personal political goals)
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/21919888/

 

[momeNt]

I didn't know the history of this law, but Google is telling me that it most likely was a result of Johnson having to face big money from non-profits during a senate election, running against a fellow named Dudley Dougherty. I can also find at least one political ad from 1954 where Johnson is accused of not attacking communists enough. Seems pretty clear that this law originated as a political maneuver, whether or not you think the law is justified. (Interestingly I've also found a brief blurb from a biography where LBJ apparently got the FBI to give him information on this same Dougherty guy, lol, Johnson was such a shitbag).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-lyndon-johnson-passed-legisla/
https://www.colorlines.com/articles/why-are-non-profits-banned-politicking-begin (even a left-leaning source agrees that the law's inception was motivated by Johnson's personal political goals)
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/21919888/

Won't convince Jhhnn of this coming from the noblest of places to enshrine the separation of church and state. The only thing missing from his proclamations would be angels singing, ironic I know.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you think it was something that was overlooked for approximately 200 years? IRS Tax laws regulating 501(c)(3) has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

Per Thomas Jefferson.


So you are just displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on here. Bear in mind that this applies to all 501(c)(3), it's not like he is saying he will strike it down for JUST religion organizations, or specific organizations, now that would be "respecting an establishment of religion" and specific intermingling of church and state.

People are constantly repeating that this is about church political activity and not charitable organizations as a whole. Would you agree that it at the very least is a false narrative? Are you able to do a little side-shuffle with your shilling? Or must you strictly adhere to the guidelines set before you?

While true, that's not what the Donald said. He referred directly to religious organizations. If there's any false narrative, it's yours.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't know the history of this law, but Google is telling me that it most likely was a result of Johnson having to face big money from non-profits during a senate election, running against a fellow named Dudley Dougherty. I can also find at least one political ad from 1954 where Johnson is accused of not attacking communists enough. Seems pretty clear that this law originated as a political maneuver, whether or not you think the law is justified. (Interestingly I've also found a brief blurb from a biography where LBJ apparently got the FBI to give him information on this same Dougherty guy, lol, Johnson was such a shitbag).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-correct-lyndon-johnson-passed-legisla/
https://www.colorlines.com/articles/why-are-non-profits-banned-politicking-begin (even a left-leaning source agrees that the law's inception was motivated by Johnson's personal political goals)
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/21919888/

So what? It was non-controversial at the time. We do not and never have exempted political expenditures from taxation, anyway. The Johnson rule attempted to curb what abuse there was at the time. Why should we give it up now for Falwell & his ultra conservative big money backers?