Started By
Message
locked post

Plan to allow churches to play in politics - while staying tax free - part of tax bill

Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:53 am
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
15047 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:53 am
LINK

WASHINGTON — For years, a coalition of well-funded groups on the religious right have waged an uphill battle to repeal a 1954 law that bans churches and other nonprofit groups from engaging in political activity.
Now, those groups are edging toward a once-improbable victory as Republican lawmakers, with the enthusiastic backing of President Trump, prepare to rewrite large swaths of the United States tax code as part of the $1.5 trillion tax package moving through Congress.

Among the changes in the tax bill that passed the House this month is a provision to roll back the 1954 ban, a move that is championed by the religious right, but opposed by thousands of religious and nonprofit leaders, who warn that it could blur the line between charity and politics.

The change could turn churches into a well-funded political force, with donors diverting as much as $1.7 billion each year from traditional political committees to churches and other nonprofit groups that could legally engage in partisan politics for the first time, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.

SNIP

Thousands of religious leaders, as well as groups and denominations like the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches and the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, say rolling back the Johnson Amendment would be the biggest threat to the stability and mission of their organizations in a generation. Charities and houses of worship whose members, staffs and boards of directors now span the political spectrum predict that they will be pressured to take sides in political campaigns. Nonprofits and religious groups that receive government funding worry that politicians or donors will pressure them for endorsements in exchange for continued funding.








Posted by Damone
FoCo
Member since Aug 2016
32737 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:54 am to
If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?
Posted by gthog61
Irving, TX
Member since Nov 2009
71001 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:54 am to
You mean like black churches always have?

Funny how leftists never minded that
Posted by idlewatcher
County Jail
Member since Jan 2012
79090 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:54 am to
Half of churches need to be audited anyway. No telling how much shady crap goes on with their books.

Hi Joel Osteen.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
69294 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:57 am to
Unions aren't taxed and they get to play politics

Planned parenthood isn't taxed and they get to play politics
Posted by skrayper
21-0 Asterisk Drive
Member since Nov 2012
30877 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:58 am to
quote:

If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?


Anyone who's been to a church service in Alabama can tell you that nothing has stopped them from being in politics, they're just more subtle about it.
Posted by TaderSalad
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
24656 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:59 am to
quote:

If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?



/thread


Posted by Parmen
Member since Apr 2016
18317 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:59 am to
quote:

If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?


I agree.

Churches should have been involved in politics since July 4, 1776.
Posted by wickowick
Head of Island
Member since Dec 2006
45804 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:00 pm to
quote:

The change could turn churches into a well-funded political force, with donors diverting as much as $1.7 billion each year from traditional political committees to churches and other nonprofit groups that could legally engage in partisan politics for the first time, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.


So they would be like a union?
Posted by Eurocat
Member since Apr 2004
15047 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:08 pm to
quote:

If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?



What churches are federally funded? The Catholics? The Methodists?

Keep in mind that I wrote "churches" to make it fit the title line up top. This would also apply to the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan.

I agree with what was written that many churches could use a good audit scrub.
Posted by JuiceTerry
Roond the Scheme
Member since Apr 2013
40868 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:24 pm to
It's amazing how many idiots want politicians buying churches and vice versa now
Posted by Quidam65
Q Continuum
Member since Jun 2010
19307 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:42 pm to
I think it ironic that evangelical Christians would push a plan that will ultimately bring about the One World Religion against which they rail constantly.

Just another reason for me not to be a member of any sect or congregation.
This post was edited on 11/27/17 at 12:44 pm
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
41675 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:47 pm to
quote:

It's amazing how many idiots want politicians buying churches and vice versa now
If a politician can "buy" a church, it's not really a church.

The reason why many Christians are in favor of this repeal or modification is that their pastors are not at liberty to speak about politics or politicians in a way that could possibly violate the IRS tax code, even if there are valid theological reasons for making those statements. In essence, preachers are being censored.
Posted by JuiceTerry
Roond the Scheme
Member since Apr 2013
40868 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

If a politician can "buy" a church, it's not really a church.

Then there are no churches
quote:

In essence, preachers are being censored.
horseshite. This isn't about preachers, it's about Churches who don't pay taxes sponsoring politicians who will promise them anything for that sponsorship.
Posted by AbuTheMonkey
Chicago, IL
Member since May 2014
8003 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

quote:
In essence, preachers are being censored.
Horse shite. This isn't about preachers, it's about Churches who don't pay taxes sponsoring politicians who will promise them anything for that sponsorship.


I think most are wanting some consistency.

Apply the same rules to unions, for instance.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
56482 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:09 pm to
Posted by JuiceTerry
Roond the Scheme
Member since Apr 2013
40868 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

Apply the same rules to unions, for instance.

That's fine, but don't apply consistency by making the problem worse

Posted by L.A.
The Mojave Desert
Member since Aug 2003
61270 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:14 pm to
Why is this a partisan issue? The NY Times (and you) seem to have a problem with Conservative churches being allowed to do what black churches (Democrat voters) have always done.

It's either wrong or it's not, right? It's either wrong for both sides, or it's okay for both sides, right?
Posted by Quidam65
Q Continuum
Member since Jun 2010
19307 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

The reason why many Christians are in favor of this repeal or modification is that their pastors are not at liberty to speak about politics or politicians in a way that could possibly violate the IRS tax code, even if there are valid theological reasons for making those statements. In essence, preachers are being censored.


No they aren't.

They can say abortion is murder. They can say that politicians who support abortion oppose God based on the Ten Commandments. They just can't say that Sam Smith should be elected because he's pro-life and because John Jones is pro-abortion.
Posted by AbuTheMonkey
Chicago, IL
Member since May 2014
8003 posts
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:17 pm to
quote:

quote:
Apply the same rules to unions, for instance.
That's fine, but don't apply consistency by making the problem worse


Eh, either way is really fine. Just make it consistent across the board for non-profit entities so everyone knows the rules.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram