GOP tax bill allows churches to endorse political candidates.

[Lightbringer]

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.

Your definition of what is fair and ethical has always been in opposition to my own. I think the Johnson amendment is incredibly lax and is more than fair to the churches. I don't find it ethical for a church to endorse candidates and claim that it was invoked by their holy deities in a nation where over 90% of the population identifies as religious and 80% are Christian, and I think it would be unfair to the members of the church to be subjugated and pressured to support a candidate through the use of their religious beliefs. It hearkens back to how churches operated during monarchies and how much political power they possessed.

It would also regress the political aims of politicians back to pandering to religious sentiments in order to gain votes rather than adjudicating for strong policy. Not saying there's much policy substance going on now, but it would still be a step back in the wrong direction.

You say that those pastors and churches would be met with criticism or can be condemned by its members; but in small towns, members could also be excommunicated or ostracized from their community. You never take into account the power dynamic in these issues.

When it comes to the videos you've posted, I have stated that the Johnson Amendment forbids the endorsement of a candidate from the pulpit of the church, which neither did. A church isn't allowed to tell its voters to go vote for candidate X. It does not prevent them, however, from speaking out on moral issues, even if they are also political issues. This goes with my point about the lax nature of the law itself.

But if you're asking for my personal take on those videos? Then no, I don't agree with the first one; but with the second, I don't see how Obama fits into the category of what we are discussing. He wasn't endorsing/disavowing candidates nor is he an official of the church.

You yourself said you prefer that the churches have less vocal power and influence, but are trying to appeal to the other side of the spectrum; yet in this democracy, over 70% of Americans agree that pastors shouldn't be able to endorse candidates from the pulpit and that the Johnson Amendment shouldn't be repealed. So that is the voice of the people, including the religious from both parties, in support of this amendment.

Recent study:

You must be registered for see links

Older study:

You must be registered for see links

And once again, I reiterate that there is nothing that prohibits the church's right to free speech. As it is not laid out within the constitution, tax-exception is nothing but a luxury that they may choose to participate in by the conditions set forth. And if you have issues with the pretext of these conditions, then we are simply in disagreement.

Also, as a brief history of the amendment itself, it was proposed by a Democratic senator, which passed within a Republican controlled senate and signed into law by a Republican president. This law was a mutual agreement between both parties.

I brought up donations to point out the fallacy of your principle. If donations are tools that "amplify" free speech, then so are churches; yet you are in disagreement with only one of the two.

But let's backtrack as we have drifted from the actual issue itself and strayed into the contentious and hypothetical. The reality is that with the amendment repealed, the churches will remain tax-exempt and be able to endorse and donate to politicians; and it seems that both you and I are not in favor of this being the case.

 

[kimb]

Your definition of what is fair and ethical has always been in opposition to my own. I think the Johnson amendment is incredibly lax and is more than fair to the churches. I don't find it ethical for a church to endorse candidates and claim that it was invoked by their holy deities in a nation where over 90% of the population identifies as religious and 80% are Christian, and I think it would be unfair to the members of the church to be subjugated and pressured to support a candidate through the use of their religious beliefs. It hearkens back to how churches operated during monarchies and how much political power they possessed.

Modern day churches are no where as near powerful as they were during monarchies, seeing as how back then there was no separation of church and state; this is a false comparison. Also, are these church members now victims? Hostages to the churches they attend with no free will of their own? What your describing sounds like hyperbole. Members of churches are not subject to anything their church says unless they choose to be subject or they are held against their will.

It would also regress the political aims of politicians back to pandering to religious sentiments in order to gain votes rather than adjudicating for strong policy. Not saying there's much policy substance going on now, but it would still be a step back in the wrong direction.

Religious pandering has always been the status quo among politicians, not only with religious groups, but with pandering to racial minorities, women, lgbtqiapk, middle class workers, and the rust belt. The political aims of politicians have nearly always been to pander in order to gain popularity, lets not be naive and think otherwise.

You say that those pastors and churches would be met with criticism or can be condemned by its members; but in small towns, members could also be excommunicated or ostracized from their community. You never take into account the power dynamic in these issues.

Freedom of association. Again, I have no issue with this.

When it comes to the videos you've posted, I have stated that the Johnson Amendment forbids the endorsement of a candidate from the pulpit of the church, which neither did. A church isn't allowed to tell it's voters to go vote for candidate X. It does not prevent them, however, from speaking out on moral issues, even if they are also political issues. This once again goes with my point about the lax nature of the law itself.

But if you're asking for my personal take on those videos? Then no, I don't agree with the first one; but with the second, I don't see how Obama fits into the category of what we are discussing. He wasn't endorsing/disavowing candidates nor is he an official of the church.

You yourself said you prefer that the churches have less vocal power and influence, but are trying to appeal to the other side of the spectrum; yet in this democracy, over 70% of Americans agree that pastors shouldn't be able to endorse candidates from the pulpit and that the Johnson Amendment shouldn't be repealed. So that is the voice of the people, including the religious from both parties, in support of this amendment.

Recent study:

You must be registered for see links

Older study:

You must be registered for see links

Don't turn this into a left-right, "ulterior motives", shill thing; I get enough of that bullshit from Dreckerplayer. Lol

My response is, I don't know why your providing stats on the nations opinion. That's irrelevant to my opinion or the discussion of what we think. Popular opinions don't sway me.

And once again, I reiterate that there is nothing that prohibits the church's right to free speech. As it is not laid out within the constitution, tax-exception is nothing but a luxury that they may choose to participate in by the conditions set forth. And if you have issues with the pretext of these conditions, then we are simply in disagreement.

Also, as a brief history of the amendment itself, it was proposed by a Democratic senator, which passed within a Republican controlled senate and signed into law by a Republican president. This law was a mutual agreement between both parties.

The reason why tax-exemptions were put in place was to prevent the oppression of freedom of religion, and relinquish any power the state could have over the church. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity. I also don't care about the left-right political dynamics behind the birth of the bill. Republicans and Democrats are the same enemy in my eyes.

I brought up donations to point out the fallacy of your principle. If donations are tools that "amplify" free speech, then so are churches; yet you are in disagreement with only one of the two.

But you weren't arguing that donations were tools to amplify speech, I was. You were arguing that donations are considered an expression of free speech. Are you now forfeiting your initial argument, and taking up my argument against me? If you are, just state it clearly that you do not believe donations are an expression of free speech to prevent you from jumping between two arguments.

RECAP: you brought up donations to point out what you believed to be a contradiction, that being my support of the churches ability to vocally endorse politicians contradicting with me being against donations as you argued that they're considered expressions of free speech. I disagreed that the notion of donations being considered free speech under the law, and point out they are tools of amplication of speech. You then went from saying donations were forms of "free speech" to agreeing that donations are "tools to amply of free speech".

Confirm which you're arguing before we go any further

But let's backtrack as we have drifted from the actual issue itself and strayed into the contentious and hypothetical. The reality is that with the amendment repealed, the churches will remain tax-exempt and be able to endorse and donate to politicians; and it seems that both you and I are not in favor of this being the case.

In the reality of the situation, yeah, we both agree. We're literally debating my hypothetical proposition for a solution to the Johnson Amendment, since my initial issue was only the definition of endorsement, which I still hold issue with. Lol

I can understand why you'd disagree with the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, but I don't understand why you can disagree with my proposition. You keep saying it's immoral for churches to participate in such a thing, but provide no objective reasoning for it outside of conventional ethics.

We could just end the discussion here, since we both agree, we're just debating the hypotheticals I put forth.

 

[Lightbringer]

Modern day churches are no where as near powerful as they were during monarchies, seeing as how back then there was no separation of church and state; this is a false comparison. Also, are these church members now victims? Hostages to the churches they attend with no free will of their own? What your describing sounds like hyperbole. Members of churches are not subject to anything their church says unless they choose to be subject or they are held against their will.


Religious pandering has always been the status quo among politicians, not only with religious groups, but with pandering to racial minorities, women, lgbtqiapk, middle class workers, and the rust belt. The political aims of politicians have nearly always been to pander in order to gain popularity, lets not be naive and think otherwise.


Freedom of association. Again, I have no issue with this.


Don't turn this into a left-right, "ulterior motives", shill thing; I get enough of that bullshit from Dreckerplayer. Lol

My response is, I don't know why your providing stats on the nations opinion. That's irrelevant to my opinion or the discussion of what we think. Popular opinions don't sway me.



The reason why tax-exemptions were put in place was to prevent the oppression of freedom of religion, and relinquish any power the state could have over the church. It is not a luxury, it is a necessity. I also don't care about the left-right political dynamics behind the birth of the bill. Republicans and Democrats are the same enemy in my eyes.


But you weren't arguing that donations were tools to amplify speech, I was. You were arguing that donations are considered an expression of free speech. Are you now forfeiting your initial argument, and taking up my argument against me? If you are, just state it clearly that you do not believe donations are an expression of free speech to prevent you from jumping between two arguments.

RECAP: you brought up donations to point out what you believed to be a contradiction, that being my support of the churches ability to vocally endorse politicians contradicting with me being against donations as you argued that they're considered expressions of free speech. I disagreed that the notion of donations being considered free speech under the law, and point out they are tools of amplication of speech. You then went from saying donations were forms of "free speech" to agreeing that donations are "tools to amply of free speech".

Confirm which you're arguing before we go any further


In the reality of the situation, yeah, we both agree. We're literally debating my hypothetical proposition for a solution to the Johnson Amendment, since my initial issue was only the definition of endorsement, which I still hold issue with. Lol

I can understand why you'd disagree with the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, but I don't understand why you can disagree with my proposition. You keep saying it's immoral for churches to participate in such a thing, but provide no objective reasoning for it outside of conventional ethics.

We could just end the discussion here, since we both agree, we're just debating the hypotheticals I put forth.

You haven't done so either and you were arguing ethics just as much as I have. You presented an opinion of which I disagree with and I laid out my reasons of which you disagree with.

I think it's a misuse of religious power and is unfair to members of the church to be pressured by their faith to go out and vote for a candidate which they may or may not support. You don't.

You downplay the power dynamic and the ostracism of members within small communities where a main church is centered around where they live. I disagree with your notion of a hyperbole. I don't think you understand how powerful churches can be in small rural communities.

I think it does more harm than good. You don't.

I'm not here to debate hypotheticals with you. I'm here to debate what is and is not; and what is going to happen if the amendment is repealed, we can at least both agree we are not in favor of.

And with this, our discussion ends.

 

[kimb]

You haven't done so either and you were arguing ethics just as much as I have. You presented an opinion of which I disagree with and I laid out my reasons of which you disagree with.

I think it's a misuse of religious power and is unfair to members of the church to be pressured by their faith to go out and vote for a candidate which they may or may not support. You don't.

You downplay the power dynamic and the ostracism of members within small communities where a main church is centered around where they live. I disagree with your notion of a hyperbole. I don't think you understand how powerful churches can be in small rural communities.

I think it does more harm than good. You don't.

I'm not here to debate hypotheticals with you. I'm here to debate what is and is not; and what is going to happen if the amendment is repealed, we can at least both agree we are not in favor of.

And with this, our discussion ends.

I wasn't taking a shot at you for arguing ethics, I was just agreeing with you on how far out we went from the original post.

Closing statements: I think the church should be capable of using their religious power to the extent that it does not forcibly cause harm upon others. Churches are not "things", but a collective consisting of individuals and each individual has the power and free will to dictate their relationship within their communities and churches. You think church members living in a small rural town being kicked out or ostracized by his religious community is an overtly immoral thing, I don't. Social ostracism already occurs within the church, from apostasy, to stances on things like homosexuality, celibacy, and divorce. I don't see what great difference there would be in adding political alignment from that list, but you think otherwise. Which is fine; agree to disagree.

I enjoy debating hypotheticals because they produce unconventional ways of thinking, which brings upon new laws, ideas, etc. I might have taken the conversation in a direction you didn't find appealing, but at least we got our grievenances across without being hostile towards each other. I'm leaving the discussion with a better understanding of an opposite unique perspective, which is always rewarding.