Shutout
Footballguy
Yes, there's a reason for the establishment clause (separation of church and state) being the first added to the Bill of Rights.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Campaigning For Specific Candidates In Church? Ok? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
Shutout
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
The General
Footballguy
Shutout
Footballguy
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2016/november/trump-and-pence-send-video-messages-to-the-nations-churches
Spend the 5 minutes on it and listen.
The General
Footballguy
That's a campaign ad with some fear mongering about Christian persecution and promises to repeal the completely ignored Johnson Amendment.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Okay. I watched it and read the article.
I see no difference. They’re political ads both clearly advocating for a particular vote. What difference do you see?
I know some people love the whatabouts. That what Harris did is somehow ok because Pence did it too. We all know that's often a deflection.
I think the much more interesting discussion in the current one. Is doing this kind of thing ok? Or should it be?
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I believe in affirmative action as well. That’s a very different issue but the same principle applies which is giving a benefit to a minority that others are not entitled to receive. I don’t regard this principle as racist, but I’m not surprised you and a few others around here do.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Total tangent, but doesnt taxing churches pretty much only apply to property taxes?
I mean it isnt like churches would be paying dividends.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
if I had said Upon further reflection, while I’m not OK with this for churches in general, I’m OK with it for white churches.
would you have said that was racist ?
call it both ways or accept being hypocritical - we can't stop racism by using racism
The General
Footballguy
I learned from this thread type of stuff is done somewhat frequently. If people don't want this in their church they should find a different one. Whose responsibility is this?
The last president went as far as to make this a political issue in his ads he ran in churches and in his campaign.
Captain Cranks
Footballguy
Fair question. While I won't step away from my generalization, I'll take a step back from using "majority". This article states 20% of Americans "strongly embrace Christian nationalism". IIRC, that's similar to the number cited in another book I've read on the subject. If we make the assumption that this group also identifies as conservative, we're talking nearly 50%. While a material number, it's not a "large majority" and I was clearly wrong to describe it as such if their numbers are accurate.
timschochet
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Couldn't one make an argument that the money collected via donations should be subject to taxation? Or, at the very least, the "profit" on that; i.e. any collected donations minus expenditures? Similarly, do churches pay taxes now on interest earned? They must have money sitting somewhere, earning interest/dividends/capital gains.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
You get mad when people bust your chops over stuff like this, but I honestly don't know what you expect. This is drive-by trolling.
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
Churches are generally automatically exempt from federal income tax. They do not need to apply for tax exempt status the way a non-church charitable organization would. Income related to their exempt function is not subject to income tax which generally includes investment income. There are exceptions for unrelated business income. For example, if a church operated a religious bookstore that competed with other bookstores, the income derived from book sales may be taxable.
From what I remember, the IRS fought Scientology for years over it's tax exempt status but eventually acquiesced because they kept losing in court. The issue was that the government cannot make a determination as to what constitutes a "real" religion.
The General
Footballguy
Answer for it how though.Kal El said:
People leave their church? The church has their tax exemption status repealed?
Zow
Footballguy
And, you know, this stuff is still going on:The General said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYMIozCKxGE
Cliffs notes: pastor claims Biden is a pedophile, election was stolen, the left is "evil," [insert crazy Q theory here].
Last edited by a moderator:
I suppose it depends on the situation, but my pastor has said that if he does that at our church, we can remove him from office.
The General
Footballguy
I think this is the most pragmatic way to handle this. Getting the government involved in this seems way too messy.
Zow
Footballguy
Yep. To me, most faiths teach dogmas that are based in a notion of clearly identifying good and evil. For example, God v. Satan. Also, to me, most faiths teach dogmas that reach into the most private spheres of our lives. For example, premarital sex, birth control, homosexual thoughts, etc. And our First Amendment allows for this (as it should) provided nobody is ever forced to attend church. As such, it more than stands to reason that churches will reach into the political sphere as well. In other words, if a church is going to tell me when and with whom I can have sex, a church telling me to who to vote for (or not vote for), and even that one side of the political spectrum is "evil," seems inevitable. And it should be the right of the church to do such things, just like it is my right to publicly denounce such nonsense.
The government should be taxing churches and then leaving them alone entirely unless and until there is reasonable suspicion that a particular church is engaged in unawful and/or criminal activity.
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott
Footballguy
Churches should keep politics out...usually I have seen them make their case by summarizing their beliefs but not specific candidates or party affiliation.
The General
Footballguy
Pretty much aligned with all this.
The tax exemption stuff is out of my realm really - other than it seems to be a minefield of issues. Good luck unwinding that to whoever does this stuff.
This Johnson Amendment is completely ignored for a reason, no politician wants to touch it either way. Trump being the gem he is saw a political beehive that was beneficial for him to whack on.
Bottom line for me is the church goer can choose to go somewhere else if they don’t want to hear this stuff.
The General
Footballguy
Not a church guy but initially I thought sure to this, keep it out. Doesn’t impact me.
But thinking about it more what is the response if a church dives into this world? Where does this line get drawn and by whom, can a church sponsor a message like the Republicans are evil and you must vote for Dems…but just not mention a candidate? Who drives the repercussions if this is determined to be wrong?
Seems to me church is elective, if you don’t like it don’t go.
The General
Footballguy
Tom Hagen
Footballguy
But you would have the same problem. Churches would apply as charitable organizations and the IRS would need to determine which organizations applying for 501(c)(3) status are a religion in order to deny those applications.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Johnson Amendment exempts churches. No church has to apply for or be approved to be tax exempt. It is clearly written in the code and instructions.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1023.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiAyefbtdfzAhUhkGoFHY09DiAQFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0I7aMF2XPsnlkxgWefzsW7
Organizations not required to obtain recognition of exemption. The following types of organizations may be considered tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) without filing Form 1023 (or Form 1023-EZ).
• Churches, including synagogues, temples, and mosques.
Last edited by a moderator:
The General
Footballguy
As I have read about this the Johnson Amendment is meant to limit what tax-exempt organizations, like churches, can do in the political arena LINK
No one pays any attention to this and political messages and endorsements have been freely given at churches. There have been thousands examples of Christian clergy deliberately challenging this law in the past decade and only one audit came from this.
To clarify, I meant that they should not qualify based on being a religious organization. It wouldn't exclude them from qualifying based on some other criteria.
Zow
Footballguy
So, do you propose government action? Internal action? In other words, how do you propose that this be regulated so it doesn't happen?
bigbottom
Footballguy
Why? What is the basis for tying tax exempt status to the prohibition of endorsing a candidate for office?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
That is the argument that is made.Rich Conway said:
If we treat them like a normal business we wouldnt tax donations. (That would be like taxing pre expense revenue as income tax)
So basically the only churches that would create any sizable tax revenue stream would be churches that have a lot of excess donations that they just let sit. Does this exist? Sure. Would it exist if it got taxed? I highly doubt it would amount to much.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
No it isn’t. It’s my position and I honestly believe it.IvanKaramazov said:
There is an attempt to constrict black voting in the South, it’s unjust and racist IMO, and black churchgoers should have the right to combat this in any way they can. That includes doing things that normally would not be acceptable and still isn’t for white churches. And no this is not racist and it’s not hypocritical.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
This would obviously apply to those churches that go this route. There is no application for those that dont.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Okay, we’ve already discussed that rule in this thread. I have challenged that rule philosophically. Is your position based only on the fact that the IRS says so? Do you think that rule is good policy? If so, why?
bigbottom
Footballguy
I don’t think allowing black churches to endorse a candidate remedies the problem you are talking about. Churches can support voter registration, voter education, voter access. Aren’t those more closely tied to your concerns than endorsing a particular candidate?
The General
Footballguy
The IRS doesn't seem to care about this and looks the other way as far as I can tell.
Likely because the ####storm enforcing this would become.
timschochet
Footballguy
No. The only way at this point for black voters to fight whats happening is to elect more Democrats. While they still can.
This is the sort of thing I’m talking about:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-republicans-pass-voting-maps-that-entrench-power-of-whites/ar-AAPI8sX?ocid=msedgntp
This sort of shameful act justifies, IMO, black churches stretching the rules.
The church used to be self-policing, especially when concerning false teachers and the like. The best suggestion would be for believers to follow the teachings of the Bible and do those, but humans are notorious for doing everything but what they’re supposed to do. That said, government action is completely out of the question.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Someone who was racist in a different way than you would argue that black churches stretching the rules justifies restrictions on voting. The only way for white voters to fight what's happening in the churches is to elect more Republicans. While they still can.
Similar threads
