Poll of the Day > Trump set to allow CHURCHES to ENDORSE POLITICIANS by Killing Johnson Bill!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fake Christian, Donald Trump is set to make good on his campaign promise to allow CHURCHES to ENDORSE POLITICAL CANDIDATES!!

The new tax package is going to end the over 60 year long Johnson Amendment crafted by Democrat Lyndon B Johnson to further separate church and state as it says any house of worship and other tax-emempt organizations are NOT allowed to endorse politicans!!

Supporters of the Johnson Amendment say it blocks churches from becoming PACS but those who support it say it inhibits free speech by the church

Trump said "An Amendment, pushed by Lyndon Johnson many years ago, threatens religions institutions with a loss of their tax-empt status if they openly advocate their political views. Their voice has been taken away. I am going to work very hard to repeal that language and to protect free speech for all Americans".

Breaking the rule could cause organizations and churches to lose their tax-exempt status as Trump vowed to "totally destroy" that amendment

4500 tax exempt organizations signed a letter to Congress to encourage them NOT to repeal the law. It said "Nonpartisanship is a cornerstone principle that has strengthened the public's trust of the charitable community"

In the 2016 election, Trump won 81% of the White Evangelical Christian vote

Do you think Churches should be allowed to endorse politicians?

Trump - Fake Christian

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/04/3F4362ED00000578-0-image-a-52_1492225621401.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/15/04/3F4362E500000578-0-image-a-51_1492225580994.jpg
---

I love Melania's coat in that pic.
---

mrduckbear posted...

Fake Christian,

Because backing the church makes somebody a fake Christian? What?

mrduckbear posted...

The new tax package is going to end the over 60 year long Johnson Amendment crafted by Democrat Lyndon B Johnson to further separate church and state as it says any house of worship and other tax-emempt organizations are NOT allowed to endorse politicans!!

A bill designed to deny speech to the opposition, basically. Keep in mind that *other* tax-exempt organizations -- and ones which receive government funding, no less! -- are allowed to make endorsements
https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/07/planned-parenthood-in-its-first-primary-endorsement-backs-hillary-clinton/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/07/planned-parenthood-endorses-obama-010150

It was just sleazy political manipulation
---

fuck that

christians spending money to hush other people goes against christianity
when people give churches money they expect it to go back to the community
---

Love ya duckbear.
---

Well at least the satanic churches will be able to do it too. It'll be amusing to what they do with that.

aiyobro posted...

fuck that

christians spending money to hush other people goes against christianity
when people give churches money they expect it to go back to the community

That's not what an endorsement is and, technically speaking, if they wanted to use money to hush people, they already can do that.
---

The only way this is even reasonable would be if churches also lost their tax-exemption status.
---

Okay, actually read the entire thing this time. The trade of tax exemption for political expression is already the law in the US and Trump wants to get rid of that, despite that being completely reasonable. This might be the most stupid thing I've heard him do yet.
---

aiyobro posted...

fuck that

christians spending money to hush other people goes against christianity
when people give churches money they expect it to go back to the community

Tell that to the Vatican with the billions of dollars it's keeping in banks.
---

They already low-key do that. Like "remember, you go to hell if you vote for someone who's pro-choice!" They may not be allowed to name names, but let's not kid ourselves that they aren't endorsing politicians.

Still, doesn't seem like a good idea to have them overtly supporting politicians.
---

faramir77 posted...

The only way this is even reasonable would be if churches also lost their tax-exemption status.

That makes zero sense on any number of levels. However, given that you're not an American, I wouldn't really expect you to understand all the reasons why. However, I should point out that MoveOn.org, a partisan political group which exists solely to push political issues, is a non-profit.

Further, the idea that churches shouldn't be allowed speech didn't exist until the 1960s when LBJ banned their speech to help gerrymander support for his campaign by removing opposition.

faramir77 posted...

Okay, actually read the entire thing this time. The trade of tax exemption for political expression is already the law in the US and Trump wants to get rid of that, despite that being completely reasonable. This might be the most stupid thing I've heard him do yet.

Other tax-exempt groups already have political speech rights, as I've already pointed out. It's done almost entirely to target churches.

TyVulpine posted...

aiyobro posted...

fuck that

christians spending money to hush other people goes against christianity
when people give churches money they expect it to go back to the community

Tell that to the Vatican with the billions of dollars it's keeping in banks.

Overlooking that you can't really target the Vatican, this Pope has very clearly endorsed and attacked political candidates. Pope Francis is actually a throwback to the middle ages when Popes tried to actively influence politics and charge indulgences.
---

Zeus posted...

TyVulpine posted...

aiyobro posted...

fuck that

christians spending money to hush other people goes against christianity
when people give churches money they expect it to go back to the community

Tell that to the Vatican with the billions of dollars it's keeping in banks.

Overlooking that you can't really target the Vatican, this Pope has very clearly endorsed and attacked political candidates. Pope Francis is actually a throwback to the middle ages when Popes tried to actively influence politics and charge indulgences.

Technically we can, by refusing to allow any more churches to buy land to buy churches.
---

Zeus posted...

That makes zero sense on any number of levels. However, given that you're not an American, I wouldn't really expect you to understand all the reasons why. However, I should point out that MoveOn.org, a partisan political group which exists solely to push political issues, is a non-profit.

Only reason is because they consider religion "special".
---

Because backing the church makes somebody a fake Christian? What?

If you actually, for once, paid attention whatsoever to the news you would know why nobody thinks Trump is actually religious.
---

Erik_P posted...

Because backing the church makes somebody a fake Christian? What?

If you actually, for once, paid attention whatsoever to the news you would know why nobody thinks Trump is actually religious.

Trump could say Jesus was returning tomorrow and his supporters would believe him.
---

TyVulpine posted...

Zeus posted...

TyVulpine posted...

aiyobro posted...

fuck that

christians spending money to hush other people goes against christianity
when people give churches money they expect it to go back to the community

Tell that to the Vatican with the billions of dollars it's keeping in banks.

Overlooking that you can't really target the Vatican, this Pope has very clearly endorsed and attacked political candidates. Pope Francis is actually a throwback to the middle ages when Popes tried to actively influence politics and charge indulgences.

Technically we can, by refusing to allow any more churches to buy land to buy churches.

Not really, though. The Vatican may be the HQ of the Catholic religion, but blocking churches doesn't really hurt the Vatican and instead only harms American communities. Churches aren't like McDonald's where they might be franchised, but they feed a corporation. Most of the proceeds stay within the community itself, either within the church or immediate region.

Erik_P posted...

Because backing the church makes somebody a fake Christian? What?

If you actually, for once, paid attention whatsoever to the news you would know why nobody thinks Trump is actually religious.

Because apparently attending church (even infrequently) and even getting married in one means you're not religious. Interesting to know.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/12/how_president-elect_trump_and_president_obama_spen.html

Because, you know, Trump attending a Christmas mass makes him a fake Christian while Obama not bothering to attend a Christmas mass makes him a real Christian.
---

So Zeus is channeling his inner ICOYAR now.
---

The only thing Trump worships is his money.
---

@Zeus, no it doesn't. It really doesn't. It gets sent overseas to other countries to "promote" the religion and indoctrinate people...I mean brainwash people...into accepting their false claims and false promises.
---

Erik_P posted...

So Zeus is channeling his inner ICOYAR now.

Erik_P posted...

The only thing Trump worships is his money.

>Shitposts repeatedly
>Accuses somebody else of ICOYARing



TyVulpine posted...

no it doesn't. It really doesn't. It gets sent overseas to other countries to "promote" the religion and indoctrinate people...I mean brainwash people...into accepting their false claims and false promises.

1) You don't need to tag me in a topic I'm tracking.

2) Source? I assume you have some financial disclosures, etc, to demonstrate how much money gets kicked up the ladder to the Vatican, right? And then statements from the Vatican to show that it's that money, rather than donations made directly to the Vatican or specially designated collections or money collected in the region itself, being used by the Vatican to sponsor religion abroad?
---

During the roast of Donald Trump he made it so that the people talking shit about him specifically didn't bring up his money. Because he cares pretty strongly about the perception of being rich.

Quit riding Trump's ass for once and stop defending him every chance you get.

Christians don't believe in divorce. He's been married 3 times. He has 4 kids with those 3 wives. He can't even get a Bible passage correct. He doesn't believe in helping the poor and needy. Before you bring it up, his charity organization is used solely to enrich himself and pay his lawsuits.
---

Erik_P posted...

During the roast of Donald Trump he made it so that the people talking shit about him specifically didn't bring up his money. Because he cares pretty strongly about the perception of being rich.

Which has any bearing because...?

Erik_P posted...

Quit riding Trump's ass for once and stop defending him every chance you get.

Quit riding Trump's ass by knocking him over the silliest, most unfounded accusations any chance you get so I can stop correcting your stupid, wrong-headed beliefs.

Erik_P posted...

Christians don't believe in divorce. He's been married 3 times. He has 4 kids with those 3 wives. He can't even get a Bible passage correct. He doesn't believe in helping the poor and needy. Before you bring it up, his charity organization is used solely to enrich himself and pay his lawsuits.

Pretty sure it's just Catholics who don't like divorce and the current Pope is changing that. However, more importantly, I know a lot of devout Catholics -- the kind who attend church weekly and find a way to insert God into most conversations -- who have been divorced so that's a completely moot point.

The claim about him not caring about the poor is unfounded, as he defended parts of the ACA during the primaries and outright attacked Cruz for wanting to roll back entitlements too far. Your claim is another hyperbolic two minutes hate: If you don't shout loudly enough for certain things, you guys accuse them of being the enemy.

As for the charity claims, they came from WaPo (which was noted even in the outlets who parroted the claims), a news outlet owned by Clinton ally and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos who has used it as a superpac to attack Hillary's enemies, be it Sanders or Trump, with largely unfounded claims. WaPo's reporting is no better than the National Enquirer or Rolling Stone.
---

Which has any bearing because...?

I'm just pointing out how much he cares about money. He certainly cares about it more than any real religion.

Quit riding Trump's ass by knocking him over the silliest, most unfounded accusations any chance you get so I can stop correcting your stupid, wrong-headed beliefs.

Every single accusation I make is true and I usually post sources to back it up. You pretty much never back up any of your claims. I'm still waiting on that source from you proving that coal is cheaper and cleaner than other energy sources.

The claim about him not caring about the poor is unfounded, as he defended parts of the ACA during the primaries and outright attacked Cruz for wanting to roll back entitlements too far. Your claim is another hyperbolic two minutes hate: If you don't shout loudly enough for certain things, you guys accuse them of being the enemy

The primaries are over. The campaign is over. The election is over. He's now the President. It doesn't matter what he said before; it only matters what he says and does now. And now, when he was promoting the new health care bill he tried getting the Freedom Caucus to his side by stripping practically everything from insurance including emergency services. And now he says he's going to withhold insurance payments from the poor in order to get Democrats to overturn the ACA. So don't even give me that fucking garbage about how he defended the ACA or cares about the poor.

As for the charity claims, they came from WaPo (which was noted even in the outlets who parroted the claims), a news outlet owned by Clinton ally and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos who has used it as a superpac to attack Hillary's enemies, be it Sanders or Trump, with largely unfounded claims. WaPo's reporting is no better than the National Enquirer or Rolling Stone.

The Washington Post has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes for reporting. Just because they report on things you don't like doesn't make them fake news.
---

Erik_P posted...

The primaries are over. The campaign is over. The election is over. He's now the President. It doesn't matter what he said before; it only matters what he says and does now

Yes it does. It matters a lot. They say anything to get elected then go back on their word. Like Obama saying he wouldn't try to censor the internet then tried to pass SOPA 3 fucking times.
---

Churches should not be tax exempt anymore because they're too self-serving. When the minister live humbly and everything went back into the community, fine, makes sense. Now there's stuff like Joel Osteen and Scientology, BS... Once they pay taxes, they can get political too.
---

Zeus posted...

mrduckbear posted...

Fake Christian,

Because backing the church makes somebody a fake Christian? What?

A lot of people claim to be christians because they went to church a few times, etc.
---

If they want to get into politics they should start paying taxes first.

I don't like the vatican either they tell aids ridden africa not to use condoms and are anti abortion
---

Erik_P posted...

I'm just pointing out how much he cares about money. He certainly cares about it more than any real religion.

Which is silly supposition but sure, it's possible.

Erik_P posted...

Every single accusation I make is true

LOL!

Erik_P posted...

and I usually post sources to back it up.

You almost never post sources and, when you do, they either directly contradict your claim (because you never read them) or are from the diciest places imaginable.

Erik_P posted...

I'm still waiting on that source from you proving that coal is cheaper and cleaner than other energy sources.

What I said was a wide-scale energy source that's as cheap yet cleaner and it's proved by the fact that coal is still used although, thanks to artificial controls like legislation, it's losing ground to natural gas. It's like pointing out that guns are better than swords for security. How do we know this? Because people use guns rather than swords. Not that you understand logical induction.

Erik_P posted...

The primaries are over. The campaign is over. The election is over. He's now the President. It doesn't matter what he said before; it only matters what he says and does now. And now, when he was promoting the new health care bill he tried getting the Freedom Caucus to his side by stripping practically everything from insurance including emergency services. And now he says he's going to withhold insurance payments from the poor in order to get Democrats to overturn the ACA. So don't even give me that fucking garbage about how he defended the ACA or cares about the poor.

Which are tactics, not beliefs.

Erik_P posted...

The Washington Post has won multiple Pulitzer Prizes for reporting. Just because they report on things you don't like doesn't make them fake news.

No, the fact that the organization has a glaring systemic bias, pays little attention to fact-checking, and that the organization as a whole looks more like the Rolling Stone than a reputable paper makes them fake. Oh, and by the way, one of those Pulitzers was won by Janet Cooke, who fabricated an entire story. But sure, the fact that they've been busted on numerous occasions for fabricating news doesn't make them fake news.

And if you think awards automatically make something legitimate, keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for making campaign promises and accepted it the same day he committed more troops to Iraq.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

Churches should not be tax exempt anymore because they're too self-serving. When the minister live humbly and everything went back into the community, fine, makes sense. Now there's stuff like Joel Osteen and Scientology, BS... Once they pay taxes, they can get political too.

Again, that doesn't make sense in light of other non-profits.

deoxxys posted...

Zeus posted...

mrduckbear posted...

Fake Christian,

Because backing the church makes somebody a fake Christian? What?

A lot of people claim to be christians because they went to church a few times, etc.

Few things: One, he just restored freedom to the church. He's being called fake for supporting the church in a very major way (although you could argue he's doing it to help all religion). Second, you absolutely can belong to a religious denomination without attending services on a regular basis. That's not the sole determinant of religious affiliation, which is more a matter of belief and practice.
---

There's no reason 99% of existing churches having tax-exempt status anyway, so that choice seems a bit moot.

In any case, I went with "No, there's a reason for separation of church and state".

EDIT/ADD: Religious people and their special "logic" that only applies to their specific beliefs/gods/etc, lol.
---

Which are tactics, not beliefs.

You realize that's not a point on your side right? If he cared about the poor he wouldn't be using tactics that harm the poor.

What I said was a wide-scale energy source that's as cheap yet cleaner and it's proved by the fact that coal is still used although, thanks to artificial controls like legislation, it's losing ground to natural gas. It's like pointing out that guns are better than swords for security. How do we know this? Because people use guns rather than swords. Not that you understand logical induction.

All you're doing is backtracking on your claims because you know you're full of shit and can't back up anything you said.

No, the fact that the organization has a glaring systemic bias, pays little attention to fact-checking, and that the organization as a whole looks more like the Rolling Stone than a reputable paper makes them fake. Oh, and by the way, one of those Pulitzers was won by Janet Cooke, who fabricated an entire story. But sure, the fact that they've been busted on numerous occasions for fabricating news doesn't make them fake news.

And if you think awards automatically make something legitimate, keep in mind that Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for making campaign promises and accepted it the same day he committed more troops to Iraq.

*Yawn*

You say a whole lot but it's nothing of substance. Like I said, just cuz you don't like that they're reporting on things that bring to light the dirty shit your God Emperor does, doesn't make them fake news.
---

BloodlustSweden posted...

There's no reason 99% of existing churches having tax-exempt status anyway, so that choice seems a bit moot.

Actually, there's a great reason given that they're the epitome of a nonprofit.

BloodlustSweden posted...

In any case, I went with "No, there's a reason for separation of church and state".

Which literally has nothing to do with anything and only serves to demonstrate a profound ignorance over how the system actually works.

BloodlustSweden posted...

EDIT/ADD: Religious people and their special "logic" that only applies to their specific beliefs/gods/etc, lol.

Actually, it applies to all recognized religions. The only things it doesn't apply to are cults and companies just looking for an exemptions.

Erik_P posted...

You realize that's not a point on your side right? If he cared about the poor he wouldn't be using tactics that harm the poor.

Taking away peoples' self-sufficiency directly hurts them. Look at NMB, Arctic, and others whose live-long subsistence on the dole have kept them from pursuing meaningful lives.

Erik_P posted...

All you're doing is backtracking on your claims because you know you're full of shit and can't back up anything you said.

No, that's literally what I said in the first place before you chose to misquote me because you couldn't bullshit your nonsense argument otherwise. After all, in that SAME SECTION I acknowledged how dams work on a smaller scale.

It's just your stereotypical nonsense. Whenever an inconvenient truth gets in the way, first you misrepresent the argument and argue against your own strawman.

Erik_P posted...

You say a whole lot but it's nothing of substance. Like I said, just cuz you don't like that they're reporting on things that bring to light the dirty shit your God Emperor does, doesn't make them fake news.

Because apparently getting busted for fabricating the news isn't an issue? I guess when you only believe what you choose to believe, things like the truth don't really matter. Hence the Anti-Reality Erik.
---

No.
---

If churches want to get even more involved in politics than they already are, then their tax exempt status should be revoked. They weren't even supposed to be tax exempt to begin with.
---

Gaawa_chan posted...

If churches want to get even more involved in politics than they already are, then their tax exempt status should be revoked. They weren't even supposed to be tax exempt to begin with.

Actually, they were supposed to be tax exempt to begin with. That's literally how it operated from the get-go. More importantly, we have countless other tax-exempt organizations which endorse politicians -- and some even lobby politicians -- so why should churches and churches alone be denied? Doesn't make sense. It was an act of suppression by LBJ that never should have stood.
---

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.
---

I guess seperation of church and state doesn't matter.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians
---

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

Doesn't matter. Still applies. Religion does not belong in politics at all.
---

Revelation34 posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

Doesn't matter. Still applies. Religion does not belong in politics at all.

but religious people still have opinions?
no one says they are trying to integrate religion into politics, just means that you might get more financial support for parties that, for example, are pro life.
---

deoxxys posted...

but religious people still have opinions?

They do have opinions but I don't think politics should be discussed in church.

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

Doesn't matter. Still applies. Religion does not belong in politics at all.

but religious people still have opinions?
no one says they are trying to integrate religion into politics, just means that you might get more financial support for parties that, for example, are pro life.

Then tell me why so many republicans try to ban abortion.
---

Revelation34 posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

Doesn't matter. Still applies. Religion does not belong in politics at all.

but religious people still have opinions?
no one says they are trying to integrate religion into politics, just means that you might get more financial support for parties that, for example, are pro life.

Then tell me why so many republicans try to ban abortion.

well that would be their stance, their political view, its not religion itself

people on the left try to ban stuff as well, just look at sjws and feminists
---

I generally hold an "all or nothing" approach.

If some non-profits can endorse politicians, than so should churches. To my way of thinking, that doesn't violate "separation of church and state" because it would be open to any religion and therefore would not constitute the establishment of a state religion.

Organizations receiving government funding should probably have some restrictions on political endorsements though.
---

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

lolwut? Of course they are. "Believe what we tell you and accept our rules without question or you'll go to hell!"
---

TyVulpine posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

lolwut? Of course they are. "Believe what we tell you and accept our rules without question or you'll go to hell!"

Thats only your perception of them, some of them think similar minded things about you. theres a side to everything and everythings not as it seems.
---

deoxxys posted...

TyVulpine posted...

deoxxys posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Zeus posted...

so why should churches and churches alone be denied?

Separation of Church and State.

but the churches arent trying to rule, they just want to endorse politicians

lolwut? Of course they are. "Believe what we tell you and accept our rules without question or you'll go to hell!"

Thats only your perception of them, some of them think similar minded things about you. theres a side to everything and everythings not as it seems.

What's their side? "Our god is the true god, all others are false shepherds and anyone that doesn't follow our demands and laws will be punished!"
There. That's their side.
---

As long as the law applies to all religions equally, it is not a state endorsement of religion, and therefore not a violation of separation of church and state.

Now if they were to say only lift restrictions on Christian churches, or only Buddhist monasteries, then you could make a case.

Its not like out politicians are going to get any more corrupt, and I seriously doubt church money is going to compete with the mega corp money they already get. Honestly, that's probably the only reason they would list these restrictions, just a little more money in their pockets, from stupid people thinking they are making a difference.