Trump wants to allow churches to endorse political candidates again

originally posted by: intrepid

Fnny you should mention that. Carlin lamented on that. "The Reagan administration was elected with the help of the Moral Majority and the Teamsters union. Just what we need. Organized religion and organized crime building a better America."

I guess my point was that there are many different organizations, but for some reason the religious ones are wrong, will bring America down, according to the OP. Religion has always been a part of America, and so far America is still here intact... If anything Religion has a lot less influence than in the past so one would think it is kind of a dead horse debate.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Homosexuals and transpersons many times create their own churches but many hide it and go to church so not sure what that persons comment was about.

As far as allowing endorsement, who cares? They do it anyways. Rev. Wright is a good example...

a reply to: interupt42

But the churches tell the cheerleaders what they want to hear. If they started advocating for liberal policies in the Bible Belt you'd see attendance drop quickly. Symbiosis. That why I don't think this is an issue. It's not supporting anything. It's "validation" of what these people already think.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
They allow liberals to vote,all that is required is they be over 21,and registered,so why shouldn't they be allowed,they allow all this social crap,transgendered,gay,at least a church has moral values,not so much liberals

I've met MORE "Christians" that turn out to be criminals in my life. YOU?

Everytime I turn around another "youth pastor" is molesting kids. Another priest scandal. ANOTHER nutjob religious zelaot with a gun.

A dusty old book does NOT automatically give someone the "moral high ground"....

a reply to: Aazadan

They are, but you can't have it both ways. I don't see what benefit there is in making churches political organizations, while at the same time having laws on the books that can't be removed short of constitutional amendments that make it impossible for the government to regulate or even really respond to those churches.

No one is saying churches should be political organizations. That is a false narrative. If a church becomes purely political, it is no longer a church.

I honesty believe you do not know what a church is.

A church is a body of people united by a set of religious beliefs. There is no monetary requirement, no specific lifestyle requirements, only a desire to practice religious dogma with like-minded people. I am apparently still a member of a church I have not attended in 35 years... I still occasionally get Christmas cards and birthday well-wishes from them. I stopped attending simply because of too much animosity in the church, something I think people should be able to put aside when in the presence of God.

A political action organization, on the other hand, is organized exclusively for political motives. Their stated purpose is to affect legislation to advance a political agenda. Whereas a church typically donates any 'profit' (a term I use loosely here, because all the church income is from charity itself) to humanitarian or religious causes, a political organization will donate almost exclusively to political campaigns.

If a church begins donating over 50% of its resources to political campaigns, I would say it has obviously crossed the line from religious into political and should not be considered a church. Personally, I would not attend a church that donated more than a token amount thusly. But that's not what this regulation does. The regulation in question does not address monetary contributions; it addresses the speech of the pastor or other church members toward any political activity.

A preacher can stand up and proclaim that one candidate for office supports gay marriage and gay marriage is against the tenets of the church... OK, what's wrong with that? There is a compelling argument from supporters of gay marriage that it should be legal and accepted. That argument, however, does not mean that everyone must accept that as a part of their religion. It does not mean they have to marry someone of the same gender, nor does it mean they have to become fast friends with a gay couple. Even a law proclaiming that gay marriage is legal does not carry such requirements. It only means that the law recognizes the marriage.

The same thing could be said for tobacco use. Just because a church decrees to its members that smoking is "of the devil." it does not follow that I cannot smoke my tobacco. That church I am a member of says I shouldn't smoke... too bad for them.

The same thing can be said for legalization of a certain plant besides tobacco.

The same thing can be said for globalism, for immigration stance, or a host of other issues. People are free to believe what they want, even in a church. The pastor speaking in his sermon is not telling the congregation what they must believe; he is stating his beliefs from a religious perspective. If his beliefs are not in line with the beliefs of the congregation, they are free to leave or just ignore his points.

This is the same point that people don't understand about Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, et al. They are not telling people what to think; they are saying what their audience already believes and educating their audience on developments. That's why the constant demonizations don't work... attacks on them are attacks on their listeners, not attempts to liberate their listeners. Similarly, attacks on the speech of a pastor are not attempts to prevent that pastor from unduly influencing others... they are attacks on every member of the congregation for agreeing with, or even for daring entertain, the pastor!

If that is not a denial of free speech, I don't know what is!

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Every other organization that does that, pays taxes. Why should churches have a competitive advantage?

The most a church should be able to say, is to tell their members to look into their hearts, decide on their values, and if they can live with each candidates values. If they can, then they can vote for that person with a clear conscience.

Once you let churches organize political speech, they'll start taking money to advertise candidates. They'll become money laundering schemes for political campaigns, at best.

a reply to: Aazadan

Every other organization that does that, pays taxes. Why should churches have a competitive advantage?

No, they do not. All charitable organizations are tax exempt.

Why should churches be any different?

The most a church should be able to say, is to tell their members to look into their hearts, decide on their values, and if they can live with each candidates values. If they can, then they can vote for that person with a clear conscience.

That's what they do.

Where did you get the idea that a pastor has the ability to demand allegiance to a particular candidate?

Once you let churches organize political speech, they'll start taking money to advertise candidates. They'll become money laundering schemes for political campaigns, at best.

But lobbyists aren't?

I think you might want to define "organizing political speech." If I start talking to friends about how crooked Hillary is, am I "organizing political speech"? Or am I stating my opinion? Am I "organizing political speech" right now by debating on this forum? Are you? Are either of us subject to additional tax simply because we are doing so?

Why should churches be any different?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: CB328
Trump wants to allow churches to endorse political candidates again

Tlhis is an alarming story I just saw that hasn't been noticed by anyone analyzing the tax "reform" bill. Trump wants to get rid of the law that doesn't allow churches to endorse politicians. This is very alarming, considering how many churchgoers there are that believe whatever their church tells them. America may end up like Iran and Iraq with religious leaders and militias running the country. Everyone should be concerned about this.


www.dailykos.com...

Good. The establishment churches—the media—endorse whomever they want.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Every other organization that does that, pays taxes. Why should churches have a competitive advantage?

No, they do not. All charitable organizations are tax exempt.

Why should churches be any different?

But what percentage of their income goes to charity? I don't think building more churches and schools count as charitable. Thinking RCC here. If X percent of the money coming in isn't used for charity then it's either used for their own means or hoarded.

Seems somebody hasn't been to church lately. They do endorse people for better or worse at least with the change they can throw money at whomever they want. Your typical black church as been politically active forever without trying to hide it.

a reply to: intrepid

I don't personally like the idea of the big extravagant buildings either. The vast majority of the churches around here use houses converted over or sometimes warehouse-type modular buildings. As I mentioned before, some don't even have a regular building; they use church members' homes. Some do have nice buildings, but only a couple I would consider extravagant.

The purpose of a church is to worship. How they worship is none of my or your business. I am not going to tell someone else what size house to own, what kind of car to drive, or what size building they need for their congregation. That's not my place. Just as it is not my place to determine the scope of the preacher's sermon Sunday morning.

If a church is doing good work and has the support of its members, it will grow and thrive. If not, it will wither and die. No SJW-style micromanagement from societal hounds of justice needed.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
They allow liberals to vote,all that is required is they be over 21,and registered,so why shouldn't they be allowed,they allow all this social crap,transgendered,gay,at least a church has moral values,not so much liberals

This guy thinks the voting age is 21 and laments the fact people he does agree with can vote... and it has the most stars.

Good lord.

originally posted by: mikell
Seems somebody hasn't been to church lately. They do endorse people for better or worse at least with the change they can throw money at whomever they want. Your typical black church as been politically active forever without trying to hide it.

It's common everywhere. The biggest church in my town holds a lot of influence. It's run by a skinhead preacher who claims that blacks are touched by Satan, and takes pride in the fact that he's personally run a bunch of gay people out of town, and continues to harass them to this day. They've got enough members that they're powerful politically, if you want to do anything in this town, you have to be a member. It's effectively the KKK by another name.

originally posted by: PistolPete

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
They allow liberals to vote,all that is required is they be over 21,and registered,so why shouldn't they be allowed,they allow all this social crap,transgendered,gay,at least a church has moral values,not so much liberals

This guy thinks the voting age is 21 and laments the fact people he does agree with can vote... and it has the most stars.

Good lord.

above top secret 2017, pushing ignorance, don't question the government, etc, etc...

a reply to: TheRedneck

That still doesn't answer the question of how much they bring in to how much goes to charity. If they get charitable status the money, after expenses, should ALL go to charity. We both know that isn't the case.

a reply to: CB328

Most churches already endorse political candidates. They place a flyer in the Sunday Bulletin.

a reply to: intrepid

So what are you proposing? A complete accounting of all churches?

I think that would be a completely futile and troublesome operation... first of all, what is an acceptable expense? Does that expense cover the cost of the accountants needed to comply with more regulation? Will charitable recipients e required to sign affidavits now to receive help?

How about the local Christmas charity drives around here that help families out at Christmas? I've participated in several of those. Individuals locate the indigent through word of mouth, and go visit them to see what they need. They have a budget and it can be spent any way it needs to be spent: fuel for heating, electric bills, groceries, toys for kids, clothes, household goods, sometimes a new appliance. All the family has to do is show they are trying, and that's not hard in a one-on-one situation... did the breadwinner get laid off, were there medical bills, whatever. Volunteers then go pay bills or show up with the goods the family needs.

I tell you, the families I have worked with have all been grateful but most would not have gone through a paper trail for help... there's no better feeling than seeing eyes light up as a hopeless situation suddenly becomes a hopeful one.

I know of more than one church that has bought a load of groceries for those in need and simply left it on the porch and drove away before they could answer the door. Some people are too proud to take charity, and this way they can't say no because there's no one to say no to.

These are all programs sponsored and ran by CHURCHES. If you want an accounting of every dollar, then these go away; you remove the charity and replace it with financial accounting. That's how the government works, and it leads to those not as badly in need getting the benefits that are needed more than those who are more desperate but never receive a dime. It would be a case of taking a sledgehammer to a car motor to make sure it was tough enough to satisfy you. Not a smart thing to do.

The smart thing to do is follow the money trail. Political contributions are required by law to be divulged already. If a church is donating huge sums of money to a political campaign, investigate them then... just like what we did before preachers were muzzled. No worry about free speech, no interference with charity, no issue with freedom of religion, and the ones who try to play the system are eventually caught.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: intrepid

So what are you proposing? A complete accounting of all churches?

If they want charitable status, yes. No need to go into an elaborate scenario like you dreamed up. Same as any tax form. Income in, dollars out...with receipts. Then the money goes to charity. Not to some organization that keeps funds under the blanket of "charitable organization". I'm surprised the government doesn't do this already.

originally posted by: CB328
Trump wants to allow churches to endorse political candidates again

Tlhis is an alarming story I just saw that hasn't been noticed by anyone analyzing the tax "reform" bill. Trump wants to get rid of the law that doesn't allow churches to endorse politicians. This is very alarming, considering how many churchgoers there are that believe whatever their church tells them. America may end up like Iran and Iraq with religious leaders and militias running the country. Everyone should be concerned about this.


www.dailykos.com...

I support the idea...It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution...Freedom of speech...

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Revolution9

Then let them ALSO start paying property and income taxes, and I'm ALL IN.

One has nothing to do with the other...