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

[columbus]

Gentle is for sissies.

I love it when they scream.
Or are you more "Experienced" than I guessed?

Dayum. This thread is so much better than the usual Trump claptrap.
Tom

 

[Neo Deist]

I love it when they scream.
Or are you more "Experienced" than I guessed?

Dayum. This thread is so much better than the usual Trump claptrap.
Tom

I'm the Alpha, that's all that matters.

 

[columbus]

I'm the Alpha, that's all that matters.

Google "Power Bottom".
Tom

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Religion has & will continue to have a major presence in politics.
It's like the whack-a-mole game....restrict it in one way, & it will pop up in another.
If churches are banned from political speech by the threat of loss of special tax exemption,
the individual members still have their voice.

I get that, I'm just saying that ideally religion ought have no place in politics. I'm not saying that only atheist and the non-religious should have anything to do with politics, only that if legislature has any whiff of religious language (e.g. the "Sanctity of Life" bill), it should automatically be tossed out.

I truly fear that we are on our way to becoming a Theocracy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps all church income should be taxed, but get a rebate on all audited money spent on charitable work. The rebate going directly in to the ring fenced charitable account. So it become additional to the charitable spend, not into anyones pockets.

If religious activities weren't considered "charitable", that might work okay. Otherwise, things like pastors' salaries, church upkeep, and religious marketing (evangelism) would be taxpayer-subsidized.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion has & will continue to have a major presence in politics.
It's like the whack-a-mole game....restrict it in one way, & it will pop up in another.
If churches are banned from political speech by the threat of loss of special tax exemption,
the individual members still have their voice.

The simplest & most 1st Amendment friendly approach is to let them speak freely.
And the fairest & most 1st Amendment compliant tax policy is that they pay taxes
for the services they use like everyone else.

Edit....
I see that I just channeled Kilgore.
But I win cuz I used far more words to say the same thing.

"Whack-a-mole" suggests a zero-sum game, where knocking one mole down causes another to pop up... but nobody's talking about balancing greater freedom for churches with less freedom for their parishioners.

 

[Shad]

Right. Mussolini decided to give the Vatican it's kingdom back. We should all get behind that? Wasn't he nicknamed "Hitler's pope" at the time?

No you should get behind your government and international law recognizing another state it has for decades.

Nope. It is a name with no true merit. The Vatican saved thousands of Jews during WW2.

 

[Revoltingest]

you don't have a zipper, nor wear undies, ya kilt-wearin' Scot! Or, were you just lying about that???

Then just what did I padlock?

 

[Revoltingest]

I get that, I'm just saying that ideally religion ought have no place in politics. I'm not saying that only atheist and the non-religious should have anything to do with politics, only that if legislature has any whiff of religious language (e.g. the "Sanctity of Life" bill), it should automatically be tossed out.

I truly fear that we are on our way to becoming a Theocracy.

I'm not worried about becoming a theocracy.
The atheist conspiracy is moving along swimmingly.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The constitution may say that government cannot support religion but it does not say religion cannot support politics. If atheists are free to say anything they want at any time, why can't a religious person also say anything at any time. And if that happens to be in a church, so what?

 

[Revoltingest]

"Whack-a-mole" suggests a zero-sum game, where knocking one mole down causes another to pop up...

I was concerned some pedantic know-it-all would seize upon that minor detail.
But I haven't used the whack-a-mole analogy in years....& I wanted to!

......but nobody's talking about balancing greater freedom for churches with less freedom for their parishioners.

I only meant that religion will have influence in politics no matter what measures are taken to suppress it.

 

[Kemosloby]

No you should get behind your government and international law recognizing another state it has for decades.

Nope. It is a name with no true merit. The Vatican saved thousands of Jews during WW2.

No, Vatican city is hardly another state except by the letter of the law, which I am not behind, being a Christian, The pope should also recognize that. Which did they save, Zionists?

 

[McBell]

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 say tax them.
I also say let them meddle in politics.

Seems the only difference will be they are getting taxed....

 

[fantome profane]

Here is a text of a proposed executive order by Trump. Now before anyone else points it out this is just a draft, it has not been signed, and might never be signed, or it might look very different if it does get signed. That being said it is a real draft, the administration has admitted that this is an actual draft.

Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination <--source

This is like one of those religious freedom laws on steroids. If this were to be signed not only would it be legal for any business to discriminate when supplying a service or in hiring, but it would even allow government employees to discriminate.

This has not happened yet, and as I say it may never happen. But this is something that we need to keep our eyes open for.

 

[Shad]

No, Vatican city is hardly another state except by the letter of the law, which I am not behind, being a Christian, The pope should also recognize that.

So you decide to ignore laws when it doesn't fit your form of Christianity. You demand another branch of Christianity conform to your views. Hilarious Protestant arrogance.

Which did they save, Zionists?

Irrelevant.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here is a text of a proposed executive order by Trump. Now before anyone else points it out this is just a draft, it has not been signed, and might never be signed, or it might look very different if it does get signed. That being said it is a real draft, the administration has admitted that this is an actual draft.

I sure hope you are mistaken. That text is atrocious. It has no constructive purpose and it all but begs to be used in abusive ways.

 

[Kemosloby]

So you decide to ignore laws when it doesn't fit your form of Christianity. You demand another branch of Christianity conform to your views. Hilarious Protestant arrogance.



Irrelevant.

Very relevant.

The pope is not the head of a nation, unless it's some sick twisted nation called Vatican City, where they keep the men and women separated and make no children, produce nothing of value but live like kings. So it's a disgusting show of legalizism to allow the pope to lecture to our congress on the basis of being a head of State.

 

[metis]

This country was at least partially built on the concept of "separation of church and state", and I feel it would be foolish to mettle with that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No you should get behind your government and international law recognizing another state it has for decades.

No one should acknowledge the Vatican as a state. At best, it deserves the reputation as a modern day Alsatia, a cesspool of fugitives of the law and those who harbor them.

I'm not worried about becoming a theocracy.
The atheist conspiracy is moving along swimmingly.

1920s Germany looked about the same.

Leaked Draft of Trump’s Religious Freedom Order Reveals Sweeping Plans to Legalize Discrimination <--source

This is like one of those religious freedom laws on steroids. If this were to be signed not only would it be legal for any business to discriminate when supplying a service or in hiring, but it would even allow government employees to discriminate.

This has not happened yet, and as I say it may never happen. But this is something that we need to keep our eyes open for.

Looks like I may get to add another thing to my list of criminal behaviors, because such things I cannot support. Pence tried this for Indiana, and it pissed off the world. Trump tries it, and we may see even more rioting.

 

[Revoltingest]

1920s Germany looked about the same.

So we're 1920s Germany now?
I don't think so.