• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump Just Said He Would Remove The Johnson Amendment

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
41,241
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.
The Johnson Amendment refers to a change in the U.S. tax code made in 1954 which prohibited certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates.
 
He has been making that promise to any right wing evangelical that will listen on the campaign trail. In fact, his current SCOTUS pick will likely help him reach that goal. The evangelicals have had enough of losing power and influence thank you very much. Rather than re-examine their policies, they decided long ago that it's the evil gubbmint keeping them so oppressed as they are. The interesting part is, I think it's been the wall that has retained much of religion's power and influence in this country. They have much weaker protections in Europe, and look at how religion is doing over there. What is also interesting is all the polls showing religion losing it's power, prestige and followers. Some of the most often cited reasons for people losing their religious outlook on life is the intermingling of religion and politics, and evangelical's beliefs about homosexuality.

I have a sneaky suspicion that were the Johnson amendment repealed, they'll be trading some short term gain for a steep fall off instead of a long, slow decline. If I were evangelical, I would try to remember that the wall of separation of powers doesn't just protect government from religion, but religion from government. Look at how Trump is already threatening removing government funding for things he doesn't like. Shall the government be able to remove funding for religious practices that it views unfavorably as well?

Ironically, religion was never very good at the long view of things.
 
He has been making that promise to any right wing evangelical that will listen on the campaign trail. In fact, his current SCOTUS pick will likely help him reach that goal. The evangelicals have had enough of losing power and influence thank you very much. Rather than re-examine their policies, they decided long ago that it's the evil gubbmint keeping them so oppressed as they are. The interesting part is, I think it's been the wall that has retained much of religion's power and influence in this country. They have much weaker protections in Europe, and look at how religion is doing over there. What is also interesting is all the polls showing religion losing it's power, prestige and followers. Some of the most often cited reasons for people losing their religious outlook on life is the intermingling of religion and politics, and evangelical's beliefs about homosexuality.

I have a sneaky suspicion that were the Johnson amendment repealed, they'll be trading some short term gain for a steep fall off instead of a long, slow decline. If I were evangelical, I would try to remember that the wall of separation of powers doesn't just protect government from religion, but religion from government. Look at how Trump is already threatening removing government funding for things he doesn't like. Shall the government be able to remove funding for religious practices that it views unfavorably as well?

Ironically, religion was never very good at the long view of things.

I think that might be challenged if it is done; as a taxpayer-supported entity, no church can justify taking political sides.
 
I just read someone's opinion that this could backfire on conservatives: Churches have been scoffing this law for decades, and the IRS has done nothing. However, the Johnson amendment prohibits other non-profits from engaging in politics. Removing it would allow these organizations (who didn't benefit from the immunity religious institutions had to break the law) to engage in politics as part of their missions. An interesting view.

(This opinion was posted in the comment section at TheRoot, a new news commentary site I am finding interesting)
 
I just read someone's opinion that this could backfire on conservatives: Churches have been scoffing this law for decades, and the IRS has done nothing. However, the Johnson amendment prohibits other non-profits from engaging in politics. Removing it would allow these organizations (who didn't benefit from the immunity religious institutions had to break the law) to engage in politics as part of their missions. An interesting view.

Yep, in fact the conservatives have a whole day dedicated to it once per year. Speak from the pulpit day or something like that.

I can see non-religious charities suing over it. Churches already don't have any laws requiring transparency for how their funds are spent, unlike any other non religious charity that by law must show where their money is going. I'm fine with repealing it, as long as they tax it and/or are required to show where the money goes, and are subject to audit.
 
I just read someone's opinion that this could backfire on conservatives: Churches have been scoffing this law for decades, and the IRS has done nothing. However, the Johnson amendment prohibits other non-profits from engaging in politics. Removing it would allow these organizations (who didn't benefit from the immunity religious institutions had to break the law) to engage in politics as part of their missions. An interesting view.

(This opinion was posted in the comment section at TheRoot, a new news commentary site I am finding interesting)

Very useful info. I was reading this today

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...logical-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/

And the idea of thinking about what motivates THEM (not you) sounds eminently reasonable.
 
I just read someone's opinion that this could backfire on conservatives: Churches have been scoffing this law for decades, and the IRS has done nothing. However, the Johnson amendment prohibits other non-profits from engaging in politics. Removing it would allow these organizations (who didn't benefit from the immunity religious institutions had to break the law) to engage in politics as part of their missions. An interesting view.

(This opinion was posted in the comment section at TheRoot, a new news commentary site I am finding interesting)

Very useful info. I was reading this today

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...logical-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/

And the idea of thinking about what motivates THEM (not you) sounds eminently reasonable.

I liked the article, but how to frame this particular issue in terms of:
and for conservatives, “group loyalty, authority, and purity (e.g., patriotism, traditionalism, strictness, religious sanctity).”
?

The strongest argument for separation of church and state is that otherwise both are corrupted. You would think traditionalism and religious sanctity would be a concern, but all people seem to want today is change at any price.
 
Ironically, someone should remove HIS johnson before it gets him impeached.
 
So if I understand things correctly:

1. Trump gets this passed, allowing churches to engage in partisan politics and not worry about losing their tax exempt status.

2. "Churches" now get to run political ads, organize for candidates, etc. all tax exempt.

3. People can make political donations to "churches," writing it off on their taxes.

4. "Churches" don't have to report any of those donations, so the money remains hidden.

5. This opens the door to a flood of unregulated, unreported money in politics and it is all tax-deductible to boot!

What could possibly go wrong?
 
So if I understand things correctly:

1. Trump gets this passed, allowing churches to engage in partisan politics and not worry about losing their tax exempt status.

2. "Churches" now get to run political ads, organize for candidates, etc. all tax exempt.

3. People can make political donations to "churches," writing it off on their taxes.

4. "Churches" don't have to report any of those donations, so the money remains hidden.

5. This opens the door to a flood of unregulated, unreported money in politics and it is all tax-deductible to boot!

What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe we can donate tax free to the Church of Satan and have them fund PACs devoted to actual freedom?
 
So if I understand things correctly:

1. Trump gets this passed, allowing churches to engage in partisan politics and not worry about losing their tax exempt status.

2. "Churches" now get to run political ads, organize for candidates, etc. all tax exempt.

3. People can make political donations to "churches," writing it off on their taxes.

4. "Churches" don't have to report any of those donations, so the money remains hidden.

5. This opens the door to a flood of unregulated, unreported money in politics and it is all tax-deductible to boot!

What could possibly go wrong?
You are mistaking "donations" for "free speech'... according to a majority of the idiots on the Supreme Court.
 
Trump can't repeal it on his own, he needs Congress to pass a bill, who knows if they would.
 
Trump can't repeal it on his own, he needs Congress to pass a bill, who knows if they would.

With the entire Republican Congress lining up to suck his dick, he can do whatevertherhell he wants.
 
But they can't pass it without Dems helping.
 
But they can't pass it without Dems helping.

Why not? If they're short any required votes, all they have to do is change the requirement. That might become an obstacle as the mid-term elections approach, but not right now.
 
They could end the filibuster, but not sure either whether they really want to, even if Trump does.
 
They could end the filibuster, but not sure either whether they really want to, even if Trump does.

Hey, we're talking about baZILLIONS of dollars deluging republican campaign coffers. I don't think they'll hesitate for a second. Well, maybe a second, just for the optics... as long as they keep control - which this will go a long way toward ensuring - they have nothing to lose and megabucks to gain.
 
The Johnson Amendment refers to a change in the U.S. tax code made in 1954 which prohibited certain tax-exempt organizations from endorsing and opposing political candidates.

I thought the Johnson Amendment was a euphemism for circumcision.

Anyway, at least now we know when we Made America Great Before. It was 1953.
 
Back
Top Bottom