- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
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 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.
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 on 11/27/17 at 11:54 am to Eurocat
If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:54 am to Eurocat
You mean like black churches always have?
Funny how leftists never minded that
Funny how leftists never minded that
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:54 am to Eurocat
Half of churches need to be audited anyway. No telling how much shady crap goes on with their books.
Hi Joel Osteen.
Hi Joel Osteen.
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:57 am to Eurocat
Unions aren't taxed and they get to play politics
Planned parenthood isn't taxed and they get to play politics
Planned parenthood isn't taxed and they get to play politics
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:58 am to Damone
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 on 11/27/17 at 11:59 am to Damone
quote:
If federally-funded entities like Planned Parenthood can get involved in politics, then why shouldn't churches?
/thread
Posted on 11/27/17 at 11:59 am to Damone
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 on 11/27/17 at 12:00 pm to Eurocat
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 on 11/27/17 at 12:08 pm to Damone
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 on 11/27/17 at 12:24 pm to Eurocat
It's amazing how many idiots want politicians buying churches and vice versa now
Posted on 11/27/17 at 12:42 pm to Eurocat
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.
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 on 11/27/17 at 12:47 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:If a politician can "buy" a church, it's not really a church.
It's amazing how many idiots want politicians buying churches and vice versa now
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 on 11/27/17 at 12:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:Then there are no churches
If a politician can "buy" a church, it's not really a church.
quote: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.
In essence, preachers are being censored.
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:08 pm to JuiceTerry
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 on 11/27/17 at 1:10 pm to AbuTheMonkey
quote:That's fine, but don't apply consistency by making the problem worse
Apply the same rules to unions, for instance.
Posted on 11/27/17 at 1:14 pm to Eurocat
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?
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 on 11/27/17 at 1:15 pm to FooManChoo
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 on 11/27/17 at 1:17 pm to JuiceTerry
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News