• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GOP bill allows churches to back candidates, keep tax status

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
93,583
Reaction score
81,660
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
GOP bill allows churches to back candidates, keep tax status


November 2, 2017

Churches would gain the right to endorse political candidates and still retain their tax-free status under a provision in the House GOP's tax overhaul plan. The bill would repeal a 63-year-old law credited to former President Lyndon Johnson when he served in the Senate. Critics warn it could open a loophole that could funnel tax-free money into campaigns. The provision would cost $2 billion over the coming decade, according to congressional scorekeepers. The Johnson amendment law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating directly or indirectly in any political campaign to support or oppose a candidate. If the IRS determines that a group has violated the law, it can revoke its tax-exempt status. The law doesn't stop religious groups from weighing in on public policy or organizing in ways that may benefit one side in a campaign.

Democrats have argued that undercutting the law comes too close to mixing church and state. They say religious leaders already have First Amendment rights, just like anyone else. But if they want to get political, they don't have a constitutional right not to pay taxes. The GOP plan permits political activity by churches so long as there is a minimal cost. Campaign finance groups warned the change could have far-reaching implications, turning "churches into tools for secret campaign spending," said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United. President Donald Trump signed an executive order in May discouraging the IRS from enforcing the law.

I can't support this GOP 'tax reform' provision as it erodes the separation of church and state. On another level, what would prevent any politically-minded organization from claiming church status (Church of Coal?).

Related: Trump Wants to Make Churches the New Super PACs
 
Won't fly, its a violation of the 1st.
 
GOP bill allows churches to back candidates, keep tax status




I can't support this GOP 'tax reform' provision as it erodes the separation of church and state. On another level, what would prevent any politically-minded organization from claiming church status (Church of Coal?).

Related: Trump Wants to Make Churches the New Super PACs

I don’t think it’s anything more than leveling the laying field. Lots of churchs do it. For them to give advice isn’t making them an arm of the state.

The Catholic Church preaches not using birth control, but it’s pretty much ignored. Political preaching will be too.
 
I don’t think it’s anything more than leveling the laying field. Lots of churchs do it. For them to give advice isn’t making them an arm of the state.

The Catholic Church preaches not using birth control, but it’s pretty much ignored. Political preaching will be too.

Backed by money the advice would carry more weight.
 
I don’t think you understand what that is. It only prevents the govt from espousing religion not vice versa

Many folks don’t understand that.
 
GOP bill allows churches to back candidates, keep tax status




I can't support this GOP 'tax reform' provision as it erodes the separation of church and state. On another level, what would prevent any politically-minded organization from claiming church status (Church of Coal?).

Related: Trump Wants to Make Churches the New Super PACs

Do black churches where the pastor leads his congregation to vote "D" retain their tax status, of course they do. Do the born again folks get to keep their tax status, yes. So what is the change we are talking about???
 
Last edited:
Where exactly in the 1st amendment do you find that phrase?

Dude, please tell me you're not that ignorant. The phrase is a summary of what the amendment guarantees.
 
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse

"Justice Stanley F. Reed denounced the Court's reliance on the metaphor. "A rule of law," he protested, "should not be drawn from a figure of speech."[13] Justice Potter Stewart similarly opined in the first school-prayer case that the Court's task in resolving complex constitutional controversies "is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."[14] In a stinging repudiation of the Court's use of the trope, Justice William Rehnquist offered that the wall "is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.""

We should be careful when basing laws on metaphors. They tend to get all twisted up as time goes by.
 
The Mythical "Wall of Separation": How a Misused Metaphor Changed Church–State Law, Policy, and Discourse

"Justice Stanley F. Reed denounced the Court's reliance on the metaphor. "A rule of law," he protested, "should not be drawn from a figure of speech."[13] Justice Potter Stewart similarly opined in the first school-prayer case that the Court's task in resolving complex constitutional controversies "is not responsibly aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the ‘wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution."[14] In a stinging repudiation of the Court's use of the trope, Justice William Rehnquist offered that the wall "is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.""

We should be careful when basing laws on metaphors. They tend to get all twisted up as time goes by.

I will note that was a minority opinion of a case... in other words, the majority ruled differently

So, that is sort of dishonest of you... or rather the heritage foundation.
 
This bill won't make it past the Supreme Court.

Wait and see.
 
I will note that was a minority opinion of a case... in other words, the majority ruled differently

So, that is sort of dishonest of you... or rather the heritage foundation.

Actually it was up front and well sourced. I did not expect you to be so blindsided by a little history.

The point stands. Be careful when using a metaphor to base a law. Language and perspective changes. This is why its a bad idea to destroy historical items that last longer than a lifetime. Destruction just promotes ignorance.
 
Actually it was up front and well sourced. I did not expect you to be so blindsided by a little history.

The point stands. Be careful when using a metaphor to base a law. Language and perspective changes. This is why its a bad idea to destroy historical items that last longer than a lifetime. Destruction just promotes ignorance.

That still does not make it less dishonest with the attempt of spin. And, your opinion is noted.. but I feel you are using that opinion as if it was the winning opinion, and there have been numerous cases that could have taken that side if they chose over the last 60 years, yet none did. The majority opinion in that case has been reaffirmed over and over again.
 
That still does not make it less dishonest with the attempt of spin. And, your opinion is noted.. but I feel you are using that opinion as if it was the winning opinion, and there have been numerous cases that could have taken that side if they chose over the last 60 years, yet none did. The majority opinion in that case has been reaffirmed over and over again.

Nah. Just informative. We should all be well aware of the sad state of todays affairs and how we arrived.
 
Back
Top Bottom