DJL 232 #1 February 2, 2017 While we were all side tracked with Schwarzenegger drama Trump also stated that he would "totally destroy" the Johnson Ammendment which bans all tax-exempt nonprofits — which includes churches and other houses of worship, as well as charities — from “directly or indirectly” participating in any political candidate’s campaign. Now I'll admit that I didn't know this was a policy but I certainly understand why because it can effectively turn churches into SuperPacs and Lobbyist and effectively remove the separation between the interests of Church and State. Some of you may say "Oh good, but I want my Church's decree of morality to be the basis of our government" while others say, "No, I don't want to be stoned to death because my wife injured an Oxen on my property." Some of you may not like the realization that donations given to the Church might not be coming from where you want them coming from. Maybe a visiting wealthy foreigner drops a chunk of change in the donation plate and creates a bit of influence you don't like. Effectively, the Amendment isn't very well policed and there are ways around it but functionally it keep people like mega-church evangelists from getting on TV and claiming that you'll go to heaven if you send money for a candidate's campaign. All of that gets back to the fact that the Johnson Act is intended to protect American politics from an influential or corruptible group who walk under the banner of "Religion". Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/02/trump-said-hell-totally-destroy-the-johnson-amendment-what-is-it-and-why-do-people-care/?utm_term=.041a4938ff69"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnay 0 #2 February 2, 2017 Trump knows religion is critical for his influence on stupid people. The more they flourish the better he'll be able to stay in power. Everyone knows knows Trump doesn't give a shit about church, but it's a great strategic political move. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #3 February 2, 2017 I'm glad you allowed multiple votes. I don't think churches should participate in campaigns. Period. The separation of church and state goes both ways. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #4 February 2, 2017 Actually I have no problem with that provided their tax-exempt status goes with them. Tax them like everybody else and let them support whoever they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 51 #5 February 2, 2017 billvonActually I have no problem with that provided their tax-exempt status goes with them. Tax them like everybody else and let them support whoever they want. This could be the first step in simplifying the tax code. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,123 #6 February 2, 2017 Yes, that works for me, too. Good point, Bill Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 911 #7 February 2, 2017 "If the Johnson Amendment were repealed, pastors would be able to endorse candidates from the pulpit, which they’re currently not allowed to do by law. But it’s also true that a lot more money could possibly flow into politics via donations to churches and other religious organizations. That could mean religious groups would become much more powerful political forces in American politics—and it would almost certainly tee up future court battles." https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/how-trump-is-trying-to-put-more-money-in-politics/493823/ Did I hear the trumpsters talk....wait.... talk about draining the swamp. Sure. He was elected to drain the corruption, to drain the swamp. Turning religions into cash machines for politicians. Sounds like something bannon came up with. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #8 February 2, 2017 wmw999I'm glad you allowed multiple votes. I don't think churches should participate in campaigns. Period. The separation of church and state goes both ways. Wendy P. I wast thinking about allowing only one with a non-of-the-above option but I already knew who would be the least favorite."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lummy 4 #9 February 2, 2017 billvonActually I have no problem with that provided their tax-exempt status goes with them. Tax them like everybody else and let them support whoever they want. and make them abide by the same reporting requirements as pacsI promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #10 February 2, 2017 >and make them abide by the same reporting requirements as pacs As long as that is applied to everyone who participates in campaigns in a similar way, sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #11 February 2, 2017 billvon>and make them abide by the same reporting requirements as pacs As long as that is applied to everyone who participates in campaigns in a similar way, sure. yes yes and yes all the way up this chain of comments people can campaign or organize, etc etc etc....I don't mind as long as any org they are in doesn't get special treatment ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 911 #12 February 2, 2017 skinnayTrump knows religion is critical for his influence on stupid people. I always get confused. Do you mean his influence or their influence. I'm older now and am easily confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 268 #13 February 2, 2017 NewGuy2005 ***Actually I have no problem with that provided their tax-exempt status goes with them. Tax them like everybody else and let them support whoever they want. This could be the first step in simplifying the tax code. And would create a hell of a market for lawyers! Not to mention, the confusion! " Hmm... according to the church, the candidate is going to hell for sex outside of marriage, but I'm going to heaven for voting for him. Yeah, makes sense. Okay!" See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #14 February 4, 2017 billvonActually I have no problem with that provided their tax-exempt status goes with them. Tax them like everybody else and let them support whoever they want. Nice try, that won't be part of the plan. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #15 February 4, 2017 >Nice try, that won't be part of the plan. You're probably right, but I'm willing to wait to see what the proposal is. (Provided that it is more than 140 characters long, of course.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #16 February 6, 2017 billvon>Nice try, that won't be part of the plan. You're probably right, but I'm willing to wait to see what the proposal is. (Provided that it is more than 140 characters long, of course.) Again, your expectations may far outweigh reality. So sad."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
