Another hour, another bad policy from the Trump administration. If your funds are tax-emempt, you should not be playing politics with candidate endorsements. If you are paying taxes (which I fully empathize with why religious institutions do not pay tax), let your voice be heard like any other lobby in the US. https://apnews.com/9a239dae7022473f...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP AP Explains: The fuss over Trump and the Johnson Amendment WASHINGTON (AP) — Moving on a campaign promise, President Donald Trump said Thursday he will work for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment to free religious organizations from constraints on political activity. A look at the law in question: WHAT IT DOES The law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign to support or oppose a candidate. That means no donations to candidates' campaigns and no public statements explicitly on behalf of or against a candidate. WHAT IT DOESN'T DO It doesn't stop religious groups from weighing in on public policy or organizing in ways that may benefit one side in a campaign. Plenty of religiously grounded organizations or movements — Catholic bishops, the Christian Coalition, you name it — have delved fiercely into political causes, and preachers of the left and right are not shy about exhorting their followers to political action. The law requires them to stop short of endorsing candidates, but their leanings are often not a mystery. WHY IT MATTERS To supporters, the law is central to the constitutional separation of church and state. To opponents, it's a gag on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. GENESIS: IN THE BEGINNING ... A Republican Congress and Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, brought the law into effect in 1954, but it was the handiwork of Lyndon Johnson, then a Democratic senator and later a president. LBJ was no altar boy for the Constitution's edicts on church and state. He was livid that a few nonprofit groups attacked him as a communist in a Senate campaign. His amendment to the tax code was meant to slam such organizations by revoking their tax-exempt status if they went over the line in the partisan fray. His amendment was not focused on religious groups, but covers them. FITFULLY ENFORCED The IRS has not been particularly aggressive in enforcing the law. Revoking a religious organization's tax exemption risks accusations that the government is crushing religious freedom. But the fact it possesses that power has kept interference in partisan politics in check, as the law's supporters see it, and represents government overreach in the mind of critics. In September, Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin told preachers the law was a "paper tiger" and they should embrace political speech more boldly. "There is no reason to fear it," the Republican said. "There is no reason to be silent." Lisa Runquist, a California attorney who specializes in nonprofit and religious tax law, said it is a law with a lot of gray area, but she counsels clients to stay on the safe side of it. "Do you want to be the test case that goes forward?" she said she asks them. WHAT A VIOLATION LOOKS LIKE Runquist cites a case in the 1990s when a New York church bought full-page newspaper advertisements that called on Christians not to vote for Bill Clinton. The organization Americans United for the Separation of Church and State lodged a complaint with the IRS. The IRS investigated, denied the church's exempt status and a federal court upheld that decision.
If religious groups aren't devoting their attention to charities and their local communities, then they like Scientologists should pay taxes. Non-profits are another grotesque example of sheltering tax evaders without any chance for structural reform.
Im not cool with removing this law. I fully support a church that acts as a charitably contribution to society. But they have no business directly getting involved with politics. That said, I would like to see more laws enacted to go after organizations that abuse this privilege.
From what I can tell by his hands and his insecurities, Trump could actually really use a Johnson amendment. *rimshot*
Thus freeing up mosques for direct participation in politics. . . . This is gonna come back at him hard.
Not enough mosques for him to care. But he'll find a way to make it specifically about exemption for Christian institution and use of religious money in politic. I also thought about it back firing. But then, the outstanding individual religious groups out there will self-govern to not play politic. We have a good idea of which one wouldn't.
I've always thought that for a charity or religious institution to qualify for tax-exempt status there should be a maximum % of revenue that can be spent on overhead (facilities, FFE, salaries...) and a minimum % that must actually be spent on, you know, charity.
RL and Dei will support Trump no matter what. He could kick puppies and they would somehow defend it. Dei might even go do so himself considering the sociopathic statements he's made on here (well maybe just the black and brown puppies).
Churches *used* to play a heavy role in charity. Between churches becoming very materialistic and the government freely handing out welfare benefits, churches have largely become a social club. Now churches like to go on 'foreign mission' vacations to 3rd world countries.
It's going to happen, the red meat conservative house wants it and it will be packaged in the ACA repeal or a budget. This is a done deal.
Many churches do see mission as a vital component to their work and Jesus' "Great Commission." There are certain strains of thought that see mission work as necessary to trigger the return of Christ/ensure the salvation of "unreached peoples." I do not agree with this line of thinking because I can't imagine a loving God would condemn billions of people, from the person who grew up in a bad church and was berated with the worst parts of religion before swearing it off or the yak herder in Mongolia who lived their life simply, to damnation. I actually struggle with the idea of damnation at all. Anyway, I'm getting off on a tangent. It astounds me that the religious right doesn't see the can of worms they want to open. All of the "sharia law" they cower in fear of could actually be unleashed on an individual scale. Jewish employees could refuse to sell them pork or shellfish. Heck, a teetotaling Christian could work at a grocery store and refuse to sell beer to a Methodist! I just don't understand the constant desire to undo the social order that we've found a balance in after generations.
Most that can..still do, you just don't hear about it. Churches don't publicize or send out press releases for the charity they do. The megachurch I used to attend gave 90-something cars away to single moms last year. They did it the year before as well. They also hand out something like 6,000 boxes full of food to the poor. Having serious financial issues? They may also give you money for groceries and bills. They also remodel and repair houses in the poor areas of Fort Worth. They offer grief counseling one on one and in groups, full pre-marriage classes, addiction counseling, etc. NONE of these things are publicized..if I hadn't attended that church, I wouldn't have known about any of it. I also know of small church that has paid the bills of recently laid-off parishioners. This is a church were the Pastor has a full time job at a bank because he doesn't make a living-wage from the church..yet they financially help out their members in need. Churches do a whole lot of charity work that you don't hear about - especially the bigger churches that have the means to do so.
Agree and disagree. I see no reason why it should be inappropriate for religious fundies and their organizations to participate in politics and work to have their ideology reflected in public policy. That's what everybody else does, and it's the point of democracy. Churches aren't around only to feed the hungry; they generally claim their mission to be to gain converts. If they can do that somehow by getting into politics, then why not. At the same time, nonprofits (including churches) are too often used as tax-evasion vehicles and removing the Johnson amendment only makes that easier. And now churches will be people, just like corporations. But, it's something worse than that. I foresee some churches becoming campaign donation vehicles, aggregating tithes to support candidates and -- now with some megachurches sporting tens of thousands of congregants -- becoming gravitational political players of their own. We've seen that happen with unions, and the move turned those organizations and otherwise mundane labor law into political footballs. The same will happen with churches. And, even churches that try to stay out of the fray will be in the crossfire because of the churches they do engage on both sides of the partisan divide. This can be an ugly, ugly, ugly development from the point of view of spreading the word of god.
