Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Activity by Churches

[Sunstone]

Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Activity by Churches

Churches were taxed by the Federal government before the Johnson Amendment in 1954. Johnson worked out a deal -- unwise, in my opinion -- that churches would not be taxed if they did not engage in political endorsements. In recent years, this agreement has been dishonored by the Religious Right, who want tax exempt status along with the right to make political endorsements.

Johnson should have seen -- as clearly as his conservative rival Goldwater did -- that you cannot trust the Religious Right to be honorable. Goldwater condemned the Religious Right as fanatics who refused to compromise, and it's arguable that he would never have been so foolish as to attempt to cut a deal with them. Now Trump, catering to the Religious Right, wants to overturn the compromise, but while allowing the churches to keep their tax exempt status.

Your thoughts? Rants?

 

[Kemosloby]

I guess the pope wants to lecture to congress some more, and keep his tax exempt status in the US.

 

[Sunstone]

I guess the pope wants to lecture to congress some more, and keep his tax exempt status in the US.

Do you ever read more than just the thread titles? The linked to article in the OP clearly states that Trump was addressing the largely Protestant Religious Right.

 

[Shad]

I guess the pope wants to lecture to congress some more, and keep his tax exempt status in the US.

Your Protestantism is showing.

 

[lovesong]

I really didn't think he could top the last **** up, but he just keeps getting more and more pathetic and disgusting. Can I really say I'm surprised though?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is definitely what we don't need. Religion has proven itself utterly incompetent and extremely dangerous when it gets involved with the state.

 

[Kemosloby]

Do you ever read more than just the thread titles? The linked to article in the OP clearly states that Trump was address the largely Protestant Religious Right.

Yeah, they always do it in the name of the Protestants but the Vatican reaps the rewards. That's how they do everything. Pence is a Catholic. And the Protestants are mostly subverted to Catholic teachings. Who else has ever lectured to congress or been called the "moral authority" by our presidents?

 

[Kemosloby]

Your Protestantism is showing.

As it should.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is actually a good idea, since religion is unavoidably of political consequence IMO... but revoking the tax exemptions is very much a necessity for the idea to be considered.

 

[Shad]

As it should.

Yes which naturally follow you not understanding the Pope is the head of a state. He can use diplomatic channels to lecture any time he pleases. He did in 2015.

 

[Quintessence]

Off the cuff? This is one of the few reasonable things that have been proposed by that creature. However, political contributions and financing needs to be overhauled on the whole. It is already impeccably corrupt, and I am far more concerned about corruption form megacorporations at the expense of others than this particular issue.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes which naturally follow you not understanding the Pope is the head of a state. He can use diplomatic channels to lecture any time he pleases. He did in 2015.

What other head of state did Obama call the "moral authority"?

 

[MonkeyFire]

God is known for his government and host.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nothing is going to change for the better until the churches change for the better. They are going to push, just as they always have in our country, to begin to take over government and make everybody go to their church. That may not be what they are calling it, but that is what it amounts to. Of course it is entirely possible that in the future all citizens will be required to attend a state church. This is not because of Trump. Its because the church ministry have not been resisted. Feeding upon lives has only made them hungry for more.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes which naturally follow you not understanding the Pope is the head of a state. He can use diplomatic channels to lecture any time he pleases. He did in 2015.

We should all be offended. If there is any reason we have separation of church and state it's because of the Vatican.

 

[Shad]

What other head of state did Obama call the "moral authority"?

My point is others have done it before without being even being a Catholic.

 

[lovesong]

We should all be offended. If there is any reason we have separation of church and state it's because of the Vatican.

Or just, like, Christianity in general.

 

[Shad]

We should all be offended.

Offended by what? That another region of the world decided decades ago that the Vatican was it's own state, they recognized it as such as did America. You want foreign policy to act as if it was a civic matter of the citizen. You misapply the law merely to cover your Protestantism.

If there is any reason we have separation of church and state it's because of the Vatican.

The Vatican isn't a citizen, it is a foreign state. It acts as a foreign state.

Do not get me wrong, I agree. I was pointing out

No your were using a false basisi to cover for an inherent anti-Catholic stance that is a trademark of Protestantism.

Do you advocate for any and all religious authorities and trappings be barred from addressing anyone in any government function. Swearing on the bible in court, inauguration prayers, Chaplin in the Senate and military, etc? I am trying to gauge your views here.

 

[Quetzal]

Off the cuff? This is one of the few reasonable things that have been proposed by that creature. However, political contributions and financing needs to be overhauled on the whole. It is already impeccably corrupt, and I am far more concerned about corruption form megacorporations at the expense of others than this particular issue.

I tend to agree. If we look at the scope of money in politics, I think religious contributions are a small drop in the ocean of corruption.

 

[habiru]

Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Activity by Churches

Churches were taxed by the Federal government before the Johnson Amendment in 1954. Johnson worked out a deal -- unwise, in my opinion -- that churches would not be taxed if they did not engage in political endorsements. In recent years, this agreement has been dishonored by the Religious Right, who want tax exempt status along with the right to make political endorsements.

Johnson should have seen -- as clearly as his conservative rival Goldwater did -- that you cannot trust the Religious Right to be honorable. Goldwater condemned the Religious Right as fanatics who refused to compromise, and it's arguable that he would never have been so foolish as to attempt to cut a deal with them. Now Trump, catering to the Religious Right, wants to overturn the compromise, but while allowing the churches to keep their tax exempt status.

Your thoughts? Rants?

I believes that churches that makes a lot of money, that only spends the majority of their donations to help the poor, that they shouldn't be taxed.But if they use it to get rich, and which that means that they needs police protection and etc..., that they need to be Taxed.