Churches and other non-profits can now endorse political candidates

[martybegan]

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

Doesn't matter, the Union member can still vote, so we should ban Unions from being political as well.

Your logic is moronic as usual, and easily countered.

 

[pknopp]

Politics has done this to everything dolt, or had you not noticed?

We are discussing the church.

 

[Crepitus]

Doesn't matter, the Union member can still vote, so we should ban Unions from being political as well.

Your logic is moronic as usual, and easily countered.

I'm OK with that. Ban the unions too.

What? Did you think I was some hypocritical tRumpling?

 

[Street Juice]

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?

Stupid churches. Stop trying to elect politicians. Do like the synagogues and buy them.

 

[Marener]

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

Student and employee organizations have their own free speech, which this administration is trying to shut down too.

Not a peep out of you about the first amendment there.

Nothing but hypocrisy from you guys.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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?

I think churches should refrain from politics, thats not the reason they are there, however, it shouldn't be against the law to do so, if that's what they want to do

 

[MisterBeale]

That STATE dictating what religious leaders can, or cannot say to their flocks, is, and always has been unconstitutional.

Founders Online: General Defense of the Constitution, [12 June] 1788

General Defense of the Constitution, [12 June] 1788

founders.archives.gov

Thus, from its inception, regardless of what any activist judge or lawyer will tell you, the Johnson Amendment as it applies to organized religions, is, and always has been unconstitutional. Churches need not do, or refrain from doing anything to remain free of taxation from the state. The first Amendment guarantees their free exercise.

The truth is, any organized religion recognized by the state need not even file an IRS form, in fact, doing so has now posed more risk to the freedom of their conscience, than it had been when the Amendment passed. Organized religions that are 501c's are now at the mercy of the state, they, in effect, have become the mouthpieces of powerful interests.

Church & State - Peter Kershaw - In Caesar's Grip​

p.107

https://jcmatthews.org/uploads/5/3/7/7/5377341/in_caesars_grip.pdf

 

[martybegan]

I'm OK with that. Ban the unions too.

What? Did you think I was some hypocritical tRumpling?

Oh bullshit on that. Again like the Universities they would find end runs and you would turn a blind eye.

 

[martybegan]

Student and employee organizations have their own free speech, which this administration is trying to shut down too.

Not a peep out of you about the first amendment there.

Nothing but hypocrisy from you guys.

LOL, "trying to shut down". They are just pissed because they are being held accountable for ACTIONS of idiot lefty protesters.

What they do to other students isn't speech, it's direct harassment.

They can yell all they want, when you start blocking people from going where they want to go, and assaulting them, that isn't speech anymore.

 

[MisterBeale]

He’s not even changing the law, just deciding not to enforce it.

He wouldn't have had to do that if Judges had properly done their jobs and struck down the Amendment as unconstitutional from the start.

 

[Crepitus]

Oh bullshit on that. Again like the Universities they would find end runs and you would turn a blind eye.

What univesities?

 

[Marener]

LOL, "trying to shut down". They are just pissed because they are being held accountable for ACTIONS of idiot lefty protesters.

What they do to other students isn't speech, it's direct harassment.

They can yell all they want, when you start blocking people from going where they want to go, and assaulting them, that isn't speech anymore.

So you’re shutting down the speech of people because someone else said something you didn’t like?

Here you’re now advocating for collective punishment. Another lawyer of hypocrisy.

 

[martybegan]

What univesities?

Almost all of them

"We don't get into politics, but our student orgs do, our employee organizations do, and our board of trustees do"

 

[Marener]

He wouldn't have had to do that if Judges had properly done their jobs and stuck down the Amendment as unconstitutional from the start.

What’s unconstitutional about it?

 

[martybegan]

So you’re shutting down the speech of people because someone else said something you didn’t like?

Here you’re now advocating for collective punishment. Another lawyer of hypocrisy.

I'm trying to shut down people claiming only to be doing speech but actually performing actions that violate the rights of others.

Blocking my car on a highway isn't speech.

 

[Marener]

I'm trying to shut down people claiming only to be doing speech but actually performing actions that violate the rights of others.

Blocking my car on a highway isn't speech.

That’s not what Trump is trying to do.

 

[martybegan]

That’s not what Trump is trying to do.

What in your addled mind is he trying to do?

This should be "good".....

 

[Crepitus]

Almost all of them

"We don't get into politics, but our student orgs do, our employee organizations do, and our board of trustees do"

The board should not. If the employee organizations are unions they should not. Student orgs are kinda outside that loop.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

I think it is a bad idea, I wouldn’t go to church that preached politics, just not a good mix.

 

[MisterBeale]

What’s unconstitutional about it?

Is the Amendment a regulation on religious organizations, or is it not?