Churches and other non-profits can now endorse political candidates

[martybegan]

In every church I have heard any minister endorse a candidate from the pulpit though I knew where they stood politically.

My OP is simply asking the question is it a good idea to discuss politics in the pulpit. That is not to hard to understand is it?

What is a good idea is not treating religion differently than any other non-profit when it comes to political activity and the tax code.

To me the Johnson amendment was always in violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[martybegan]

Bad idea all the way around. I support the Johnson Rule even though it was originally proposed to prevent Black churches from endorsing candidates and campaigning for them. Religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.

Sorry, you just don't want opposition to your SJW lefty idiot ideas.

How about we apply it to your LGBTwhatever groups as well?

 

[justoffal]

Bad idea all the way around. I support the Johnson Rule even though it was originally proposed to prevent Black churches from endorsing candidates and campaigning for them. Religion and politics shouldn't be mixed.

Politics is always a bad idea no matter where it rears it's ugly head.

 

[JLW]

What is a good idea is not treating religion differently than any other non-profit when it comes to political activity and the tax code.

To me the Johnson amendment was always in violation of the 1st amendment.

Many people feel that way. For me, when I go to church I don’t want to hear about politics left or right.

 

[JGalt]

Duh. I guess you missed that part of the OP where I said that. It just wasn’t from the pulpit. Now when you go to your church you can hear your preacher compare Trump to Jesus. Give me a hallelujah!

No church I know of is comparing Trump to Jesus, that's just idiotic leftist babble. Christians don't worship world leaders but they do believe God's will was responsible for them being elected, whether they're good leaders or bad.

 

[martybegan]

Many people feel that way. For me, when I go to church I don’t want to hear about politics left or right.

Somehow I highly doubt that.

Now Churches won't be threatened with losing their tax status when they decide to fight against lefty idiots trying to silence them and their congregations.

 

[Crepitus]

Sorry, you just don't want opposition to your SJW lefty idiot ideas.

How about we apply it to your LGBTwhatever groups as well?

Are they churches?

No?

Then what the **** are you babbling about?

 

[Crepitus]

Politics is always a bad idea no matter where it rears it's ugly head.

Can't really argue with that.

 

[martybegan]

Are they churches?

No?

Then what the **** are you babbling about?

Why should people be silenced politically just because they are part of a Church?

Why not apply that to all other non-profits?

The 1st amendment is supposed to protect religion, not punish it.

 

[Votto]

Now lobbying groups can register as churches and not pay taxes ...

You have no problem with groups like the NAACP being tax free even though they are rampantly partisan for the DNC, do you.

 

[Marener]

What is a good idea is not treating religion differently than any other non-profit when it comes to political activity and the tax code.

But that’s exactly what Trump is doing. The Johnson amendment applies to all 501c3s such as charities and universities.

Trump singled out churches, while simultaneously coming down on political speech at other nonprofits.

He’s not even changing the law, just deciding not to enforce it. I guess your standards changed on that too.

 

[Crepitus]

Why should people be silenced politically just because they are part of a Church?

Why not apply that to all other non-profits?

The 1st amendment is supposed to protect religion, not punish it.

The people are not silenced.

The church is.

 

[ReinyDays]

You have no problem with groups like the NAACP being tax free even though they are rampantly partisan for the DNC, do you.

Where does the NAACP send their dividends? ... besides ... ha ha ... and the NAACP is a 501(C)(4) organization ...

Racists gotta hate ..

 

[martybegan]

But that’s exactly what Trump is doing. The Johnson amendment applies to all 501c3s such as charities and universities.

Trump singled out churches, while simultaneously coming down on political speech at other nonprofits.

He’s not even changing the law, just deciding not to enforce it. I guess your standards changed on that too.

The Johnson amendment was bad unconstitutional law at the Start. It was actually racist in nature from the Start.

If you want to ask them to just remove it entirely, I'd be for that as well.

 

[martybegan]

The people are not silenced.

The church is.

Bullshit. Many non-denominational churches are run and owned by the congregation, the Pastor is an employee only.

Why should they be stopped from being political?

 

[Votto]

Where does the NAACP send their dividends? ... besides ... ha ha ... and the NAACP is a 501(C)(4) organization ...

Racists gotta hate ..

Where does the church send their dividends dolt?

What kind of a question is that anyway?

Pure idiocy.

 

[Marener]

The Johnson amendment was bad unconstitutional law at the Start. It was actually racist in nature from the Start.

If you want to ask them to just remove it entirely, I'd be for that as well.

Trump could end enforcement of the amendment all together but only did it for churches.

Thus treating them differently than everyone else.

That’s what you claim to oppose.

You also claim to oppose selective enforcement but that’s just another lawyer of hypocrisy in your multilayered cake of bullshit political opinions.

Let’s let Universities endorse candidates and be overtly political. Some of them have a lot of money they can sink into campaigns.

 

[konradv]

Earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service reinterpreted the ban, known as the Johnson Amendment, saying for the first time that churches could endorse candidates from the pulpit. The change, which came via a legal settlement, functionally nullifies a core tenet of the law, giving Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years. Their ultimate goal is still to totally eliminate the law, through Congress or the Supreme Court, removing all its limits on their political activities.

“Now churches are free,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, which has been working to challenge the law for years. “The leash is gone.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/30/us/johnson-amendment-church-free-speech.html

Though the Johnson Rule has been in place for 70 years, we knew for instance where evangelicals, stood politically. They were just prohibited from saying so from the pulpit or advertising for a particular candidate.

The question is regardless of the repeal of the Johnson rule is it a good idea for Churches to start spouting politics from the pulpit and turning surmons into stump speeches for political candidates.

Will it turn off congregants? Will it just segregate people more as you seek churches that support your candidate?

What do you think?

Remove tax exemptions from all religious institutions.

 

[Crepitus]

Bullshit. Many non-denominational churches are run and owned by the congregation, the Pastor is an employee only.

Why should they be stopped from being political?

Doesn't matter. the pastor can still vote no matter what.

 

[martybegan]

Trump could end enforcement of the amendment all together but only did it for churches.

Thus treating them differently than everyone else.

That’s what you claim to oppose.

You also claim to oppose selective enforcement but that’s just another lawyer of hypocrisy in your multilayered cake of bullshit political opinions.

Let’s let Universities endorse candidates and be overtly political. Some of them have a lot of money they can sink into campaigns.

How many left supporting churches have been allowed to preach from the pulpit for decades?

If those orgs want the amendment gone, they can lobby for it.

Universities do it via the student orgs and employee orgs as a work around, stop pretending they don't do so already.