Campaigning For Specific Candidates In Church? Ok? (1 Viewer)

IvanKaramazov said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sure. But a mirror image of my position is exactly that: a mirror image. And the person you describe is indeed racist in a different way than me: he or she is, in fact racist while I am not. That Is a very different way for sure. 

I used to believe as you do, and most libertarians and conservatives do: that any benefits given to one race at the expense of another is in itself an insidious form of racism. But I’ve come to realize that such a position is too absolutist and assumes an equality of rights and opportunities that doesn’t exist in this country and never has. In general, most black Americans begin their lives way behind the starting line for most whites in terms of rights, social treatment, educational and economic opportunities. When the government attempts to give them a helping hand that’s not racism, it’s attempting to narrow the divide a small bit- they will never eliminate it. 

bigbottom said:

 Is your position based only on the fact that the IRS says so? 

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the long standing rule.

bigbottom said:

Do you think that rule is good policy?  If so, why?

Click to expand...

Yes, though I don't have time this morning to opine on why.  It does make sense, though.

Sand said:

Yes, this is the long standing rule.

Yes, though I don't have time this morning to opine on why.  It does make sense, though.

Click to expand...

Understood. When you do have time, I’d like to hear your thoughts. As I said previously, I think it’s odd that corporations and media outlets can endorse candidates but churches and charitable organizations cannot. 

bigbottom said:

.... As I said previously, I think it’s odd that corporations and media outlets can endorse candidates but churches and charitable organizations cannot. 

Click to expand...

can only wonder if @Sandis thinking along these lines, or a completely different approach but if I was forced to make an argument I would make it along the lines of the corporations (including media outlets) are making endorsements out of their own money, but charities and churches are, at least in a small part using "my money" to make the endorsements.   That some of "my money" is being collected in taxes because none of their money is.  Thus I don't want my money being used to endorse candidates without my explicit consent.  

Another potential fear is that depending on the candidates that win and hold office the IRS will favor or exact revenge on churches and charitable organizations.

Now you'll poke a million holes in that, some really big.  I would lose if I tried to close those holes which is why I stated earlier that you covered the "should it be legal piece".   But maybe others feel more passionate about it and can be more creative in those areas or ones I haven't thought of.

Captain Cranks said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the article links and the discussion. 

timschochet said:

Sure. But a mirror image of my position is exactly that: a mirror image. And the person you describe is indeed racist in a different way than me: he or she is, in fact racist while I am not. That Is a very different way for sure. 

I used to believe as you do, and most libertarians and conservatives do: that any benefits given to one race at the expense of another is in itself an insidious form of racism. But I’ve come to realize that such a position is too absolutist and assumes an equality of rights and opportunities that doesn’t exist in this country and never has. In general, most black Americans begin their lives way behind the starting line for most whites in terms of rights, social treatment, educational and economic opportunities. When the government attempts to give them a helping hand that’s not racism, it’s attempting to narrow the divide a small bit- they will never eliminate it. 

Click to expand...

The government trying to normalize outcomes based on race is one of the main reasons why blacks have been held back for so long.  Affirmative action was one of the most damaging pieces of legislation ever. 

For example, when your admissions standards are lowered to allow someone to attend based on race and not on qualifications, not only do you devalue the standards of that particular college but you do a disservice to the student by putting them with students who were accepted based on higher standards.  The more proper solution isn't to lower standards to include the student, it's to raise the standards of the student.   Ok, you can't get into college X, get into college Y.  But you get in based on your qualifications.  But instead of putting the onus on the student to raise his own standards, a student has probably been told throughout his life, that he is lesser compared to his peers from other races but it's not his fault, it's because of racism or poverty or some other element outside his control.  You don't have to be as good as the other students, we'll change the standards for you.  That sets a student up to fail.    

Now compare that same student trying out for the basketball team.  If he can't dribble the ball, the coach isn't going to add him to the team because he needs a minority on his all white team.  The athlete has to raise his standards to make the team, the team doesn't lower their standards to give an opportunity based on race.  The onus is put on the player.  Shelby Steele would have a field day with your position and why it is misguided.