Democrats to declare war on the Catholic Church for following their own doctrine and holding politicians accountable for their public policies.
That’s sure to go over well with Hispanic voters.
www.dailywire.com
If any religious entity wants to meddle in politics and/or target politicians who are enacting secular laws, then it is time they lose their religious designation and have to pay taxes just like the rest of us.
What part of that is difficult to understand?
Bullshit.
It is the job of religious entities to point out the corruption and sin in our system. . .
That is why we have the first Amendment.
You let the government attack religion for telling the people that truth? It becomes a war between Church and State.
Funny. You've hit upon one of my biggest gripes with the belief system known as Conservatism. That belief system does not stem and flow from a belief in The Constitution or the rule of law,
but from a fundamental belief in God. Attack religion for telling people the truth????? Whose truth? The founding fathers specifically wanted Church and State separated. Conservatives have
been trying to blur that separation for decades. I don't need a bible thumper to point out corruption in our system. And sin?...well, that's a matter of who you'd rather laugh or cry with.
You can't separate the two if the State is taxing the Church.
In what fantasy world of yours? A levied tax?..creates the wall. After the tax is levied, the church can decide if they want to contribute to a political organization.
My guess is that most probably wouldn't. That tax exempt status?...is a nice way to contribute and influence politics and keep that separation as blurred as possible.
I have been to Open Secrets many many times.
Never have I seen any Churches, Synagogues, Temples, or religious denominations listed as donors.
Get out of here with your bullshit now.
If the State is taking resources from religious organizations, there is no wall, the State is interfering with the operations of religious organizations by draining their operating revenue and putting it toward goals to which the religious organization might not approve, i.e. killing innocent folks overseas for some corporate agenda.
I thought you were a little more worldly wise. There are many ways a religious organization can get around being "listed" as a donor.
A church is participatiing in political lobbying. What can I do about it? Every election year, the Foundation receives complaints and questions by its members and members of the public
ffrf.org
. . . this is the argument and discussion we have been having, yes.
And I have been trying to tell you, all of that activity, the founders WANTED churches to participate in, and they WANTED them to remain unmolested by the government.
Now comes to Johnson. . . He helped pass that law, only as a weapon, and that is only how it is used. If you support that? Then you are a no good anti-American piece of garbage, that is all there is to it. And no, I am not talking about any one particular religion, there are many different religions, for many different POV. They all contribute something good to this nation. If you want them taxed for holding the elite of this nation accountable, you aren't fit to be called an American.
REGENT UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW
". . . Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged that church tax exemption is part of an “unbroken” history in the United States that “covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it.”18The Court has also recognized that church non-taxation is under girded by “more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.”19Churches were considered exempt from taxation during the colonial period.20The very first federal level income taxes also contained an exemption for churches.21After the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, which allowed Congress to levy income taxes,22the Revenue Act of that same year contained an exemption for churches.23And every iteration of the federal income tax code from that time has contained an exemption for churches.24 As Justice Brennan declared in Walz, “Rarely if ever has this Court considered the constitutionality of a practice for which the historical support is so overwhelming.”25. . . "
<snip>
". . . George Reedy, Johnson’s chief aide in 1954,was once interviewed about the events surrounding the passage of the Johnson Amendment.Reedy admitted that Johnson was “very thin-skinned” and that it was quite plausible Johnson moved for the Amendment to the tax code in response to his political adversaries.58Reedy added, however, his personal opinion that “Johnson would never have sought restrictions on religious organizations.”59 After reviewing the history of the Johnson Amendment in the context of the “highly-charged political environment” of Johnson’s reelection campaign of 1954, one scholar observed, The ban on electioneering is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state. It actually goes back to 1954 when Congress was revising the tax code, anti-communism was in full bloom, and elections were taking place in Texas. . . . Johnson was not trying to address any constitutional issue related to separation of church and state; and he did not offer the amendment because of anything that churches had done. Churches were not banned from endorsing candidates because they are religious organizations; they were banned because they have the same tax-exempt status as Facts Forum and the Committee for Constitutional Government, the right-wing organizations that Johnson was really after.60The same scholar then bluntly concluded, “The ban on electioneering has nothing to do with the First Amendment or Jeffersonian principles of separation of church and state.”61. . "
(page 247)
en.m.wikipedia.org
