Author: "No More Candy-Assed Christianity"

[PoliticalChic]

"Donald Trump correct — [Democrat/Liberal] Lyndon Johnson passed legislation limiting political activity of churches

LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups



Answer the question, Comrade Pink:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Winter reading for you......unless you're a Liberal and don't read....

You can find it in your local library.

 

[pinqy]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

 

[pinqy]

"Donald Trump correct — [Democrat/Liberal] Lyndon Johnson passed legislation limiting political activity of churches

LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups



Answer the question, Comrade Pink:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

On what planet does "legislation limiting political activity of churches" equal "deprived pastors of their right of free speech?"
I never argued that the amendment didn't limit the political activity of churches...it certainly did (and not only churches). But that does not deprive pastors of their right to free speech. They just cannot do certain things as a condition for tax exemption. There is nothing in the constitution that doesn't tallow that.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Donald Trump correct — [Democrat/Liberal] Lyndon Johnson passed legislation limiting political activity of churches

LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups



Answer the question, Comrade Pink:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

On what planet does "legislation limiting political activity of churches" equal "deprived pastors of their right of free speech?"
I never argued that the amendment didn't limit the political activity of churches...it certainly did (and not only churches). But that does not deprive pastors of their right to free speech. They just cannot do certain things as a condition for tax exemption. There is nothing in the constitution that doesn't tallow that.

"On what planet does "legislation limiting political activity of churches" equal "deprived pastors of their right of free speech?"


When the church cares to make a religious and/or biblical argument against a candidate or party.


Clear enough, you imbecile?????

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Donald Trump correct — [Democrat/Liberal] Lyndon Johnson passed legislation limiting political activity of churches

LBJ and the ban on political activity by religious groups



Answer the question, Comrade Pink:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

On what planet does "legislation limiting political activity of churches" equal "deprived pastors of their right of free speech?"
I never argued that the amendment didn't limit the political activity of churches...it certainly did (and not only churches). But that does not deprive pastors of their right to free speech. They just cannot do certain things as a condition for tax exemption. There is nothing in the constitution that doesn't tallow that.

"They just cannot do certain things as a condition for tax exemption. There is nothing in the constitution that doesn't tallow that."


Gads, you're lying scum.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Get it, Comrade Pinko????

 

[pinqy]

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I did an amazingly thorough job of eviscerating that lying low-life Leftist/Democrat Liberal....if I do say so myself!

And I did say so myself!

Those of us with a real education are both disappointed and astounded by the prevarications of folks like Comrade Pink.
But.... it was fun.




In summary.......the Democrats passed a statute that deprives religious leaders of their first amendment rights, if they dare to criticize the communist/socialist/Democrat/Liberal doctrines so prevalent in our political discussions today.


Anyone imagine that the weight of government would be brought on....say a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, no matter what they say in their churches?
See how closely America today approaches this description of Soviet Russia:

"The promised “classless society” of material and social equality was, in fact, the most granulated system of hierarchical privilege and power. Bribery, corruption, connections and favoritism permeated the entire fabric of Soviet socialist
society.
... everyone had to have “friends,” or friends who knew the right people, or who knew the right person to whom you could show just how appreciative you could be through bribery or reciprocal favors to gain access to something impossible to obtain through the normal channels of the central planning distributive network for “the masses.” How Communism became the disease it tried to cure

No justice,....and no free speech allowed.


One can hope for the best....but, pessimist that I am, I'm afraid that the election of Mr. Trump represents merely, as they say on Wall Street....a 'dead cat bounce' in America's downward death spiral.


I hope I'm wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

Sorry, but you will not be allowed to obfuscate.

The discussion is very specific, and you have not answered the question....you've simply lied, as is your wont.....


Our discussion centers on religious liberty and free speech.


Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Answer the question as though you were an American, Comrade Pinko

 

[pinqy]

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

Sorry, but you will not be allowed to obfuscate.

The discussion is very specific, and you have not answered the question....you've simply lied, as is your wont...


Our discussion centers on religious liberty and free speech.

But your claim (you don't actually have an argument) hinges on the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible. But for some reason you think that ONLY applies to the Johnson amendment. huh...why is that?

Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Answer the question as though you were an American, Comrade Pinko

Again, I deny your premise. I can't answer a question based on a lie. It is categorically untrue that the law deprived specifically pastors of all rights to free speech. What it did was forbid political activity in exchange for tax exemption as a charity.

I can set up a church right now, and there would be no government regulation on my free speech. I can choose to pay taxes and there would be no regulation on my free speech.

It is in the government's interest to support charity and to give breaks to religious, scientific, and educational non-profits. This is abused if, instead, this tax exemption is used for politics and to give donators tax write-offs for supporting political candidates and lobbying. It is NOT in the government's interest to support that.

If a church wants to involve itself in politics, it can pay taxes or file as 501(c)(4) and only pay taxes on political activities.

 

[ding]

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

Sorry, but you will not be allowed to obfuscate.

The discussion is very specific, and you have not answered the question....you've simply lied, as is your wont...


Our discussion centers on religious liberty and free speech.

But your claim (you don't actually have an argument) hinges on the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible. But for some reason you think that ONLY applies to the Johnson amendment. huh...why is that?

Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Answer the question as though you were an American, Comrade Pinko

Again, I deny your premise. I can't answer a question based on a lie. It is categorically untrue that the law deprived specifically pastors of all rights to free speech. What it did was forbid political activity in exchange for tax exemption as a charity.

I can set up a church right now, and there would be no government regulation on my free speech. I can choose to pay taxes and there would be no regulation on my free speech.

It is in the government's interest to support charity and to give breaks to religious, scientific, and educational non-profits. This is abused if, instead, this tax exemption is used for politics and to give donators tax write-offs for supporting political candidates and lobbying. It is NOT in the government's interest to support that.

If a church wants to involve itself in politics, it can pay taxes or file as 501(c)(4) and only pay taxes on political activities.

How about if we approach this from the angle of the establishment clause which is widely misunderstood?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.

Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like......

What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

Sorry, but you will not be allowed to obfuscate.

The discussion is very specific, and you have not answered the question....you've simply lied, as is your wont...


Our discussion centers on religious liberty and free speech.

But your claim (you don't actually have an argument) hinges on the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible. But for some reason you think that ONLY applies to the Johnson amendment. huh...why is that?

Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Answer the question as though you were an American, Comrade Pinko

Again, I deny your premise. I can't answer a question based on a lie. It is categorically untrue that the law deprived specifically pastors of all rights to free speech. What it did was forbid political activity in exchange for tax exemption as a charity.

I can set up a church right now, and there would be no government regulation on my free speech. I can choose to pay taxes and there would be no regulation on my free speech.

It is in the government's interest to support charity and to give breaks to religious, scientific, and educational non-profits. This is abused if, instead, this tax exemption is used for politics and to give donators tax write-offs for supporting political candidates and lobbying. It is NOT in the government's interest to support that.

If a church wants to involve itself in politics, it can pay taxes or file as 501(c)(4) and only pay taxes on political activities.

" But your claim (you don't actually have an argument) hinges on the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible."

1. I'm not arguing anything....I'm simply proving a fact.
Communists, Fascists, Liberals, Progressives, Nazis, Socialists,...one or more which describe you....all have an antipathy to both religion and to free speech.



2. You'd like to cloud the issue...."the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible".....nothing of the sort I've claimed.....because you are a low-life, gutter snipe liar.



3. The question asked, and one that you've tried to avoid, is simple and clear:
Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Soooo......What possible compelling government interest could depriving religious institutions their rights, under the United States Constitution, represent?????

...other than, of course, enforcing the laws of Marxism.
Can you answer that, Comrade Pinko?

 

[Toro]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well, Bully-Boy.....perhaps you'd like to get off the fence and take a shot at the question

The question asked, and one that you've tried to avoid, is simple and clear:
Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



C'mon.....don't be shy.

 

[Toro]

 

[pinqy]

So your contention would be that all the examples I gave are abridgements of Freedom of Speech and are unconstitutional? I wonder why you won't actually say that.
As for precision...you keep claiming that the law "deprived pastors of their right of free speech." Since the law did not mention or specifically target "pastors" and applied generally to ALL 501(c)(3) organizations, but treating churches more favorably, and since only political activity is restricted, then total freedom of speech was not denied.



What happened to precision? 501(c)(3) orgs can say plenty of things the government doesn't like without any penalty. They are restricted from Lobbying, influencing legislation, and campaigning. That is regardless of whether it is for or against the incumbent President or Congress.

Now, I cited two organizations, the ACLU and NARAL. Both have split into two parts whose finances are handled separately a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). What are you suggesting prevents a church from adopting a similar structure?

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

Sorry, but you will not be allowed to obfuscate.

The discussion is very specific, and you have not answered the question....you've simply lied, as is your wont...


Our discussion centers on religious liberty and free speech.

But your claim (you don't actually have an argument) hinges on the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible. But for some reason you think that ONLY applies to the Johnson amendment. huh...why is that?

Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Answer the question as though you were an American, Comrade Pinko

Again, I deny your premise. I can't answer a question based on a lie. It is categorically untrue that the law deprived specifically pastors of all rights to free speech. What it did was forbid political activity in exchange for tax exemption as a charity.

I can set up a church right now, and there would be no government regulation on my free speech. I can choose to pay taxes and there would be no regulation on my free speech.

It is in the government's interest to support charity and to give breaks to religious, scientific, and educational non-profits. This is abused if, instead, this tax exemption is used for politics and to give donators tax write-offs for supporting political candidates and lobbying. It is NOT in the government's interest to support that.

If a church wants to involve itself in politics, it can pay taxes or file as 501(c)(4) and only pay taxes on political activities.

How about if we approach this from the angle of the establishment clause which is widely misunderstood?

Feel free. I don't see how the establishment clause applies...unless you are one of those with the extreme position that the Establishment clause gives immunity from all laws to religious groups.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Egad!

What a wimpy bull you turned out to be!


"The Story of Ferdinand (1936) is the best known work written by American author Munro Leaf and illustrated by Robert Lawson. The children's book tells the story of a bull who would rather smell flowers than fight in bullfights. He sits in the middle of the bull ring failing to take heed of any of the provocations of the matador and others to fight."
The Story of Ferdinand - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

So.....here you are, a pinko apparatchik, doing everything you can to cloud the issue.


Lying comes easily to you Leftists....I deal in truths.

You're tap dancing like it's your job. Quit dodging...answer my question (I've answered yours)
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional, just like you're claiming for the Johnson amendment?

Sorry, but you will not be allowed to obfuscate.

The discussion is very specific, and you have not answered the question....you've simply lied, as is your wont...


Our discussion centers on religious liberty and free speech.

But your claim (you don't actually have an argument) hinges on the idea that absolutely no restrictions of speech are permissible. But for some reason you think that ONLY applies to the Johnson amendment. huh...why is that?

Here it is again:
Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????



Answer the question as though you were an American, Comrade Pinko

Again, I deny your premise. I can't answer a question based on a lie. It is categorically untrue that the law deprived specifically pastors of all rights to free speech. What it did was forbid political activity in exchange for tax exemption as a charity.

I can set up a church right now, and there would be no government regulation on my free speech. I can choose to pay taxes and there would be no regulation on my free speech.

It is in the government's interest to support charity and to give breaks to religious, scientific, and educational non-profits. This is abused if, instead, this tax exemption is used for politics and to give donators tax write-offs for supporting political candidates and lobbying. It is NOT in the government's interest to support that.

If a church wants to involve itself in politics, it can pay taxes or file as 501(c)(4) and only pay taxes on political activities.

How about if we approach this from the angle of the establishment clause which is widely misunderstood?

Feel free. I don't see how the establishment clause applies...unless you are one of those with the extreme position that the Establishment clause gives immunity from all laws to religious groups.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber

 

[pinqy]

I don't deal in 'contentions'....I deal in facts.

I stated succinctly and consistently.....the Democrat/Liberal/Fascist/Communist LBJ statute prevents the free speech of religious Americans/

And I proved it.

No you did not in any way. How is your free speech prevented by the Johnson amendment?