GOP tax bill allows churches to endorse political candidates.

[Lightbringer]

New information released about the GOP tax bill which recently passed the senate will repeal the "Johnson Amendment" which is "a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates."

By repealing this amendment it would allow churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

Many argued that this was highly unconstitutional as it violates separation of church and state of the first amendment establishment clause, which clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

You must be registered for see links

Your thoughts?

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Who cares.People wish to make an issue out of ANYTHING.

tons of manipulation goes on in churches, so I wish them nothing great.

America...is so silly.

I think, out of everything else, america wishes to find SOMETHING to act self-righteous about.They look for the opportunity, and boast about how the decisions made go against their constitution.So full of it, they act like they care, when they just want something to complain about.So much reverse psychology. I see victims, here.

 

[Sagebee]

Well I hate the fact we can legally bribe candidates in general but the biggest take away I see is i think political corruption will be a lot more bold for now on they're not going to ease us in no more

 

[Dreckerplayer]

Oh america...

America, America...

America, will always be america, and I'll just have to bare witness to it...as always.

 

[Lightbringer]

Who cares.People wish to make an issue out of ANYTHING.

tons of manipulation goes on in churches, so I wish them nothing great.

America...is so silly.

I think, out of everything else, america wishes to find SOMETHING to act self-righteous about.They look for the opportunity, and boast about how the decisions made go against their constitution.So full of it, they act like they care, when they just want something to complain about.So much reverse psychology. I see victims, here.

You literally say the exact same thing in every thread.

Can you at least be more creative?

 

[JStar King]

This is not gonna end well :lol

 

[Dreckerplayer]

You literally say the exact same thing in every thread.

Can you at least be more creative?

I've never said that. Could you have some integrity?

Maybe then we can compromise.

"Creative"...in this case, would mean "manipulate the truth", or just straight up lie.You don't get "creative" with the truth, for the simple fact that your simply stating it to INFORM people.Typically, when you have the genuine intentions of informing people, you make it as simple and straight-forward as possible(along with using terminologies when it's truly necessary)...no charlatan acts.

You don't get "creative" with the truth,that's manipulating it.

 

[Lightbringer]

I've never said that. Could you have some integrity?

Maybe then we can compromise.

Yeah, you do. You repeat the same exact phrases in almost every comment. "Who cares", "people make issues out of everything", "they're acting self-righteous", etc.

Your comments make no sense and never make a cohesive point. It's just words that hold no meaning to the context of the discussion.

 

[kimb]

Well, not all churches are non-profit organizations, in fact, most are automatically considered charities under the law which grants them the same tax exemption as non-profits. To add to that, removing regulations upon the churches ability to essentially vocalize their political opinions isn't not "a law respecting an establishment of religion", it's literally the opposite. The second half of the quote from the first amendment continues, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."


For those who don't know what phrase "no law respecting an establishment of religion", means, it's establishing that the state cannot set up a church, or pass laws that aid the church in any shape or form. Removing a barring of speech from churches is not aid.

 

[Lightbringer]

Well, not all churches are non-profit organizations, in fact, most are automatically considered charities under the law which grants them the same tax exemption as non-profits. To add to that, removing regulations upon the churches ability to essentially vocalize their political opinions isn't not "a law respecting an establishment of religion", it's literally the opposite. The second half of the quote from the first amendment continues, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Not at all. The Johnson amendment doesn't prohibit them from expressing free speech; they'll simply just lose their tax-exempt status.

 

[kimb]

Not at all. The Johnson amendment doesn't prohibit them from expressing free speech; they'll simply just lose their tax-exempt status.

I see, that makes the issue 2x has complex now. If that's the case then them being taxed (losing their tax exemption) for endorsing politicians would seemingly be an oppression on freedom of religion. The whole reason why churches are exempt in the first place is to avoid government oppression of religious freedoms through taxation. I'm all for less government control, but maybe I'm overlooking a major issue.

You mind throwing in your opposition? I might be missing something.

 

[Lightbringer]

I see, that makes the issue 2x has complex now. If that's the case then them being taxed (losing their tax exemption) for endorsing politicians would seemingly be an oppression on freedom of religion. The whole reason why churches are exempt in the first place is to avoid government oppression of religious freedoms through taxation. I'm all for less government control, but maybe I'm overlooking a major issue.

You mind throwing in your opposition? I might be missing something.

Well firstly, from a strictly constitutional point of view, tax-exemption isn't a right within the constitution nor does it say that it should be mandated within the 1st amendment.

The Johnson amendment doesn't bar churches from all political activity; mainly just from the pulpit of the church itself. Churches are still able to engage voters and have individual clergy endorse candidates. So the amendment, if you ask me, is fairly lax.

I understand the concept that taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion, of which I fully agree with; but would it not also be a double standard if a religious organization can actively participate in politics and still remain tax-free? If the whole reason for a tax-exemption was to divide the line between church and state, then how would this repeal uphold a separation?

If churches or clergy are allowed to participate in political campaigns, tax-free donations to the churches could go to support a political candidate, which would effectively turn them into campaign offices and party operatives. Religious organizations could become bigger money players in politics and would allow politicians and others seeking political power to pressure churches for endorsements.

But in the bigger picture; by allowing non-profit organizations to become fundraising engines for candidates and parties would change the philanthropic landscape and ultimately make it harder for the nonprofit sector fulfill its core purposes, which includes campaigning for social change.

Would you not agree?

 

[kimb]

Well firstly, from a strictly constitutional point of view, tax-exemption isn't a right within the constitution nor does it say that it should be mandated within the 1st amendment.

The Johnson amendment doesn't bar churches from all political activity; mainly just from the pulpit of the church itself. Churches are still able to engage voters and have individual clergy endorse candidates. So the amendment, if you ask me, is fairly lax.

I understand the concept that taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion, of which I fully agree with; but would it not also be a double standard if a religious organization can actively participate in politics and still remain tax-free? If the whole reason for a tax-exemption was to divide the line between church and state, then how would this repeal uphold a separation?

If churches or clergy are allowed to participate in political campaigns, tax-free donations to the churches could go to support a political candidate, which would effectively turn them into campaign offices and party operatives. Religious organizations could become bigger money players in politics and would allow politicians and others seeking political power to pressure churches for endorsements.

But in the bigger picture; by allowing non-profit organizations to become fundraising engines for candidates and parties would change the philanthropic landscape and ultimately make it harder for the nonprofit sector fulfill its core purposes, which includes campaigning for social change.

Would you not agree?

Hmm...it'd definitely be a double standard if religious organizations remained tax-exempt while being capable of participating in politics to the extent you described. I think my issue with the subject would have to be on defining endorsement. Here; I'll present what I believe would be the ideal relationship between church and state, and you tell me if you see any flaws or issues --

I believe that churches should be capable of endorsing a politician to the extent where their freedom of speech is not suppressed, but churches should legally not be capable of financially endorsing politicians whether it be through donation, campaigning, etc. to prevent churches and religious organizations from becoming power players in politics and retain the separation of church and state. So in theory, I'd be fine with churches and religious organizations being capable of endorsing a politician to the extent of vocal endorsement, or private assembly. I would be fine with politicians approaching churches for endorsements, as how the current separation of church and state stands, any sort of pressure or incentive on the behalf of churches would legally be non-existent. Churches would legally be incapable of gaining any sort of compensation from a politician in power who they've endorsed, nor punished or oppressed by a politician in power who they've refuse to endorse as the separation of church and state prevents from passing laws that aid/malign the church in any shape or form.

I believe churches that financially endorse politicians would be doing so beyond the confines of the law and should either have their tax-exemption status revoked, or legally prosecuted, and I believe politicians that attempt to pressure or reward churches in to endorsement would be doing so beyond the confines of the and should be legally prosecuted.

 

[Lightbringer]

Hmm...it'd definitely be a double standard if religious organizations remained tax-exempt while being capable of participating in politics to the extent you described. I think my issue with the subject would have to be on defining endorsement. Here; I'll present what I believe would be the ideal relationship between church and state, and you tell me if you see any flaws or issues --

I believe that churches should be capable of endorsing a politician to the extent where their freedom of speech is not suppressed, but churches should legally not be capable of financially endorsing politicians whether it be through donation, campaigning, etc. to prevent churches and religious organizations from becoming power players in politics and retain the separation of church and state. So in theory, I'd be fine with churches and religious organizations being capable of endorsing a politician to the extent of vocal endorsement, or private assembly. I would be fine with politicians approaching churches for endorsements, as how the current separation of church and state stands, any sort of pressure or incentive on the behalf of churches would legally be non-existent. Churches would legally be incapable of gaining any sort of compensation from a politician in power who they've endorsed, nor punished or oppressed by a politician in power who they've refuse to endorse as the separation of church and state prevents from passing laws that aid/malign the church in any shape or form.

I believe churches that financially endorse politicians would be doing so beyond the confines of the law and should either have their tax-exemption status revoked, or legally prosecuted, and I believe politicians that attempt to pressure or reward churches in to endorsement would be doing so beyond the confines of the and should be legally prosecuted.

But individual clergy are already able to endorse politicians, just not from the pulpit of the church. They just can't endorse a candidate in the form of a sermon.

Think about the ramifications? Not everyone who goes to that church might support the church's candidate, yet it is being preached to them from the podium in what should just be a religious sermon instead.

 

[kimb]

But individual clergy are already able to endorse politicians, just not from the pulpit of the church. They just can't endorse a candidate in the form of a sermon.

Think about the ramifications? Not everyone who goes to that church might support the church's candidate, yet it is being preached to them from the podium in what should just be a religious sermon instead.

Then it's up to the individual members of the church to push for change within their church, or find another church --"Free will and all that jazz". The way I outlined it, I see no reason why a pastor should not be allowed to have a sermon pushing politics, outside of conventional ethics. The only ramifications I see only happen within the confines of the church; a pastor may tarnish his reputation within his community for pushing a certain politician, a disagreement may erupt causing the church to split, indoctrination of political beliefs may occur, etc.

Issues like the ones I listed already exist within the church in various forms, I just don't see a justification to prevent pastors from pushing politics at the pulpit. (Alliteration on point).

 

[Tyrance sasuke]

Johnson amendment and stuff....complex. :erm:

 

[Lightbringer]

Then it's up to the individual members of the church to push for change within their church, or find another church --"Free will and all that jazz". The way I outlined it, I see no reason why a pastor should not be allowed to have a sermon pushing politics, outside of conventional ethics. The only ramifications I see only happen within the confines of the church; a pastor may tarnish his reputation within his community for pushing a certain politician, a disagreement may erupt causing the church to split, indoctrination of political beliefs may occur, etc.

Issues like the ones I listed already exist within the church in various forms, I just don't see a justification to prevent pastors from pushing politics at the pulpit. (Alliteration on point).

So you're in favor of the church being able to use a religious pedestal to endorse a candidate and pressure its members/community to vote for that candidate on the basis that it's God's decree?

 

[kimb]

So you're in favor of the church being able to use a religious pedestal to endorse a candidate and pressure its members/community to vote for that candidate on the basis that it's God's decree?

Not in favor, just simply not against it. The religious are already permitted to push absurd, destructive ideas that are often harmful to individuals, and in some cases lead to the regression of society, but there isn't any sort of push back for the sake of protecting the first amendment; and I believe the same sort of tolerance should apply to churches and their right to freedom of speech.

I could be wrong, I might be overlooking an enormous flaw in my thinking, or fail to see a certain aspect of the issue that has truly negative ramifications beyond conventional morality, and I'm in a position on the fence where I could easily be swayed to the opposite opinion, but on principle, I can't be against churches being able to vocally endorse politicians.

Personally, I'd prefer religious establishment have less vocal power and influence based on what I value, but I've learned that it's best to argue against what you want sometimes for the sake of fairness.

 

[Lightbringer]

Not in favor, just simply not against it. The religious are already permitted to push absurd, destructive ideas that are often harmful to individuals, and in some cases lead to the regression of society, but there isn't any sort of push back for the sake of protecting the first amendment; and I believe the same sort of tolerance should apply to churches and their right to freedom of speech.

I could be wrong, I might be overlooking an enormous flaw in my thinking, or fail to see a certain aspect of the issue that has truly negative ramifications beyond conventional morality, and I'm in a position on the fence where I could easily be swayed to the opposite opinion, but on principle, I can't be against churches being able to vocally endorse politicians.

Personally, I'd prefer religious establishment have less vocal power and influence based on what I value, but I've learned that it's best to argue against what you want sometimes for the sake of fairness.

But a church isn't a person, it's an organization. The individuals within the church have freedom of speech, even as officials of the church. Using the podium of the church to preach endorsements is where the line is drawn. That is using the church's power to influence politics.

If your principle is to not restrict free speech, then how can you make the case for not allowing churches to fund campaigns through a donation when donations themselves are considered an expression of free speech?

 

[kimb]

But a church isn't a person, it's an organization. The individuals within the church have freedom of speech, even as officials of the church. Using the podium of the church to preach endorsements is where the line is drawn. That is using the church's power to influence politics.

If your principle is to not restrict free speech, then how can you make the case for not allowing churches to fund campaigns through a donation when donations themselves are considered an expression of free speech?

The drawn line you speak of seems to be an argument from conventional ethics. That's the current status quo, and I simply see no ethical reasons to prevent churches from pushing politics outside of "that's were the line was drawn, and that's where it should stay". And churches aren't necessarily organizations; some churches do operate under religious organizations or form coalitions under one large banner, but individual churches aren't organizations. Churches are the place of worship themselves, whereas religious organizations are generally denomination based coalitions. And even then, organizations consist of churches, and churches consist of individuals. Again, if the Church of Satan or Church of Latter-day Saints (organization) wanted to vocalize support for ex. Donald Trump on a mass scale in their respective churches across the nation, I see no issue with this. It would be individuals (leaders) within the religious organizations pushing for such an endorsement, and if enough individual members across the coalition are against such an endorsement, they can condemn the leaders into withdrawing their support, or find another church if they're not able to.

Let me provide a few real world examples of the kind of religious endorsements of politicians, and tell me if you have any issues with these churches participating in political discussion through endorsement and disavowment;

Spoiler

(you don't have to watch the entirety of each video, the titles should suffice);

Pastor Steven Anderson rips on Christians that support Donald Trump.


Obama gives an apolitical, Secular Sermon at the church of MLK jr. (debatable imo)


Robert Jeffress, pastor at 12,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas, being a vocal supporter of Donald Trump

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

"Donations themselves are considered expression of free speech", yes, they're considered expressions of free speech, but they're not defined as freedom of speech within the confines of the first amendment. If you want to make an argument for donations being true forms of free speech, go for it. There are definitely logical and philosophical arguments for arguing that donations are expressions of freedom of speech; my counter argument to that claim would be that donations aren't free speech in themselves, but tools to amplify free speech. And I would think you would be against donations being considered free speech, seeing as how giant corporations and members of the 1% would be capable of smothering the voices of the other 99% percent by pushing their pocket politicians into office through massive financial support.